Advancing Excellence in Health Care • www.ahrq.gov

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

2009

U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

540 Gaither Road

Rockville, MD 20850

AHRQ Publication No. 10-0004

March 2010

www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09.htm

2009
The NHDR is the product of collaboration among agencies across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Many individuals guided and contributed to this report. Without their magnanimous support, this report would not have been

possible.

Specifically, we thank:

Primary AHRQ Staff: Carolyn Clancy, William Munier, Katherine Crosson, Ernest Moy, and Karen Ho.

HHS Interagency Workgroup for the NHQR/NHDR: Girma Alemu (HRSA), Roxanne Andrews (AHRQ), Hakan Aykan

(ASPE), Magda Barini-Garcia (HRSA), Douglas Boenning (HHS-ASPE), Miriam Campbell (CMS), Cecelia Casale (AHRQOEREP), Fran Chevarley (AHRQ-CFACT), Rachel Clement (HRSA), Daniel Crespin (AHRQ), Agnes Davidson (OPHS),

Denise Dougherty (AHRQ-OEREP), Len Epstein (HRSA), Erin Grace (AHRQ), Tanya Grandison (HRSA), Miryam Gerdine

(OPHS-OMH), Darryl Gray (AHRQ-CQuIPS), Saadia Greenberg (AoA), Kirk Greenway (IHS), Lynne Harlan (NIH/NCI),

Karen Ho (AHRQ-CQuIPS), Edwin Huff (CMS), Deloris Hunter (NIH/NCMHD), Memuna Ifedirah (CMS), Kenneth Johnson

(OCR), Jackie Shakeh Kaftarian (AHRQ-OEREP), Richard Klein (CDC-NCHS), Deborah Krauss (CMS/OA/OCSQ), Shari

Ling (CMS), Leopold Luberecki (ASPE), Diane Makuc (CDC-NCHS), Ernest Moy (AHRQ-CQuIPS), Ryan Mutter (AHRQCDOM), Karen Oliver (NIH-NIMH), Tanya Pagan-Raggio (HRSA/CQ), Judith Peres (ASPE), Susan Polniaszek (ASPE),

Barry Portnoy (NIH-ODP), Georgetta Robinson (CMS), William Rodriguez (FDA), Rochelle Rollins (OMH), Susan Rossi

(NIH), Asel Ryskulova (CDC-NCHS), Judy Sangl (AHRQ-CQuIPS), Adelle Simmons (HHS-ASPE), Alan E. Simon (CDCNCHS), Sunil Sinha (CMS), Jane Sisk (CDC-NCHS), Nancy Sonnenfeld (CDC-NCHS), Caroline Taplin (HHS-ASPE),

Karmen Todd (OCR), Benedict Truman (CDC), Joan Van Nostrand (HRSA), Nadarajen Vydelingum (NIH/NCI), Barbara

Wells (NIH/NHLBI), Valerie Welsh (OPHS-OMH), Odies Williams (OCR), and Deborah Willis-Fillinger (HRSA).

AHRQ NHQR/NHDR Team: Roxanne Andrews, Denise Burgess, Fran Chevarley, Cecilia Casale, Rita Coleman, Daniel

Crespin, Katherine Crosson, Denise Dougherty, Darryl Gray, Karen Ho, Jackie Shakeh Kaftarian, Ernest Moy, William Munier,

Ryan Mutter, Judy Sangl, and Marc Zodet.

HHS Data Experts: Umed Ajani (CDC), Roxanne Andrews (AHRQ), Frances Chevarley (AHRQ), Steven Cohen (AHRQ),

James Colliver (SAMHSA), Paul Eggers (NIH-NIDDK), John Fleishman (AHRQ), Anita Gadzuk (SAMHSA), Joe Gfroerer

(SAMHSA), Kirk Greenway (IHS), Stan Lehman (CDC), Robert Pratt (CDC), Valerie Robison (CDC), Beatrice Rouse

(SAMHSA), Asel Ryskulova (CDC-NCHS), Alan E. Simon (CDC-NCHS), Jane Sisk (CDC-NCHS), Cheryll Thomas (CDC),

Debra Trunzo (SAMHSA), and Marc Zodet (AHRQ).

Other Data Experts:Valarie Ashby (U-Michigan), Marguerite Barrett (Thomson Reuters), Dale Bratzler (Oklahoma QIO),

Joachim Bruess (NCQA), Xiuhua Chen (SSS), Rosanna Coffey (Thomson Reuters), Stephen Connor (NHPCO), Maureen

Curry (Qualidigm), Claudia Dahlerus (Qualidigm), Celia Dahlman (Fu Associates), Thomas Dudley (Qualidigm), Stephen

Edge (Rosewell Park Cancer Institute), David Grant (UCLA), Michael Halpern (American Cancer Society), Matthew Haskins

(NHPCO), Allen Ma (Oklahoma QIO), Lauren Miller (Oklahoma QIO), Wato Nsa (Oklahoma QIO), Bryan Palis (NCBD,

American College of Surgeons), Royce Park (UCLA), Allison Petrilla (NHPCO), Mary Pratt (Qualidigm), John Rauch

(Westat), Susan Reimann (U-Michigan), William Ross (Fu Associates), Robin Sands (U-Michigan), Carol Spence (NHPCO),

Andrew Stewart (NCBD, American College of Surgeons), Elizabeth Ward (American Cancer Society), Mike Wilson (Westat),

and Claudia Wright (Oklahoma QIO).

Other AHRQ Contributors: Barbara Barton, Doreen Bonnett, Cindy Brach, Celia Dahlman, Karen Fleming-Michael,

William Freeman, Paul Gorrell, Biff LeVee, Morgan Liscinski, Corey Mackison, Kathy McKay, Gerri Michael-Dyer, Karen

Migdail, Pamela Owens, Mamatha Pancholi, Larry Patton, Wendy Perry, Deborah Queenan, Mary Rolston, Scott Rowe, Randie

Siegel, Christine Williams, and Phyllis Zucker.

Data Support Contractors: CHD-Fu, Social and Scientific Systems, Thomson Reuters Healthcare, and Westat.

Acknowledgments
Chapter Page

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Introduction and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Quality of Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 Diabetes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

 End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

 Heart Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

 HIV and AIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

 Mental Health and Substance Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 Respiratory Diseases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

 Lifestyle Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

 Supportive and Palliative Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

 Patient Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

 Timeliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

 Patient Centeredness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

 Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

3. Access to Health Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

 Facilitators and Barriers to Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

 Health Care Utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

 Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

4. Priority Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

 Racial and Ethnic Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

 Low-Income Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

 Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

 Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

 Older Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

 Residents of Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

 Individuals With Disabilities and Special Health Care Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

List of Core Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Appendixes:

 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09/datasources/index.html

 Detailed Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09/methods/index.html

 Measure Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09/measurespec/index.html

 Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr09/index.html

Contents

Key Themes and Highlights From the National

Healthcare Disparities Report 

Examining health care disparities is an integral part of improving health care quality. Health care disparities

are the differences or gaps in care experienced by one population compared with another population. As the

National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) shows, Americans too often do not receive care that they need

or they receive care that causes harm. 

The National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR) shows that some Americans receive worse care than

other Americans. Within the scope of health care delivery, these disparities may be due to differences in

access to care, provider biases, poor provider-patient communication, poor health literacy, or other factors. 

The purpose of the NHDR, as mandated by Congress,i is to identify the differences or gaps where some

populations receive poor or worse care than others and to track how these gaps are changing over time.

Although the emphasis is on disparities related to race and socioeconomic status, the reporting mandate

indicates an expectation that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) will examine health

care disparities across broadly defined “priority populations.” These include ethnic minorities and other

groups or categories of individuals experiencing disparate and inadequate health care. 

The NHDR and NHQR use the same measures, which are categorized across four dimensions of quality:

effectiveness, patient safety, timeliness, and patient centeredness. This year’s report focuses on the state of

health care disparities for a group of “core” measuresii that represent the most important and scientifically

credible measures of health care quality for the Nation, as selected by the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) Interagency Work Group.iii By focusing on core measures, the 2009 report provides a more

readily understandable summary and explanation of the key results derived from the data.iv

Three key themes emerge in the 2009 NHDR:

u Disparities are common and uninsurance is an important contributor.

u Many disparities are not decreasing. 

u Some disparities merit particular attention, especially care for cancer, heart failure, and pneumonia. 

We also summarize efforts by AHRQ and HHS to accelerate the pace of improvement by:

u Training providers.

u Raising awareness.

u Forming partnerships to identify and test solutions.

i This 2009 report is the seventh National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR) mandated by the U.S. Congress in 42 U.S.C.

299a-1(a)(6). It is produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on behalf of the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) and in collaboration with an HHS-wide Interagency Work Group. 

ii Not all core measures have data for all subgroups for analysis. 

iii The HHS Interagency Work Group, which represents HHS agencies and offices, was formed to provide advice and support

to AHRQ and the National Reports team.

iv Data on all NHDR measures are available in the Data Tables appendix at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/measurix.htm.

National Healthcare 1 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
Disparities Are Common and Uninsurance Is an

Important Contributor 

All population groups should receive equally high quality of care. Getting into the health care system

(access to care) and receiving appropriate health care in time for the services to be effective (quality care) are

key factors in ensuring good health outcomes. 

Consistent with extensive research and findings in previous NHDRs, the 2009 report finds that disparities

related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status still pervade the American health care system. Although

varying in magnitude by condition and population, disparities are observed in almost all aspects of health

care, including:

u Across all dimensions of health care quality: effectiveness, patient safety, timeliness, and patient

centeredness.

u Across all dimensions of access to care: facilitators and barriers to care and health care utilization.

u Across many levels and types of care: preventive care, treatment of acute conditions, and management

of chronic diseases.

u Across many clinical conditions: cancer, diabetes, end stage renal disease, heart disease, HIV disease,

mental health and substance abuse, and respiratory diseases.

u Across many care settings: primary care, home health care, hospice care, emergency departments,

hospitals, and nursing homes.

u Within many subpopulations: women, children, older adults, residents of rural areas, and individuals

with disabilities and other special health care needs.

To quantify the prevalence of disparities across the core measures tracked in the 2009 report, racial and

ethnic minority groups and socioeconomic groups are compared with an appropriate reference group for

each core measure. Each group could receive care that is poorer than, about the same as, or better than the

reference group. 

National Healthcare 2 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Same Worse

Black vs.

White (n=20) 

3

8

6

7

5

4

1

10

6

9

14

15

2

4

Better

Asian vs.

White (n=20) 

AI/AN vs.

White (n=20) 

Hispanic vs.

Non-Hispanic White (n=20) 

Poor vs.

High Income (n=20) 

6

Figure H.1. Distribution of core quality measures for which members of selected group experienced

better, same, or poorer quality of care compared with reference group

Better = Population received better quality of care than the reference group.

Same = Population and reference group received about the same quality of care.

Worse = Population received poorer quality of care than the reference group.

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Note: Asian includes Asian or Pacific Islander when information is not collected separately for each group. Data presented are the

most recent data available. Measures presented here for racial and ethnic minority groups are a subset of the core measure set that

has data for all groups. Some measures for poor populations are different from the measures used for racial and ethnic groups.

For sizable proportions of measures, racial and ethnic minorities and poor people receive lower quality care: 

u Blacks received worse care than Whites for 50% (10/20) of core measures (Figure H.1). Blacks

received better care than Whites for 15% (3/20) of core measures. 

u Asians received worse care than Whites for 30% (6/20) of core measures and better care for 40% (8/20)

of core measures.

u American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) received worse care than Whites for 45% (9/20) of core

measures and better care for 25% (5/20) of core measures. 

u Hispanics received worse care than non-Hispanic Whites for 70% (14/20) of core measures and better

care for 20% (4/20) of core measures. 

u Poor people received worse care than high-income people for 75% (15/20) of core measures and better

care for 5% (1/20) of core measures. 

3 National Healthcare 

Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
Figure H.2. Distribution of core access measures for which members of selected group experienced

better, same, or worse access to care compared with reference group

Better = Population had better access to care than the reference group.

Same = Population and reference group had about the same access to care.

Worse = Population had worse access to care than the reference group.

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Note: Asian includes Asian or Pacific Islander when information is not collected separately for each group. Data presented are the

most recent data available. 

For many measures, racial and ethnic minorities and poor people have worse access to care: 

u Blacks, Asians, and AI/ANs had worse access to care than Whites for one-third (2/6) of core measures

(Figure H.2). 

u Hispanics had worse access than non-Hispanic Whites for 83% (5/6) of core measures.

u Poor people had worse access to care than high-income people for all 6 core measures.

The growing rate of uninsurance in America has been the subject of considerable examination during the past

10 years in both the popular press and academic literature. A focus of this year’s NHQR is the relationship

between uninsurance and quality of care, and the findings demonstrate that uninsured people tend to get the

worst care. 

National Healthcare 4 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Black vs.

White (n=6) 

4

1

3

4

1

2 2 2

6

5

Asian vs.

White (n=6) 

AI/AN vs.

White (n=6) 

Hispanic vs.

Non-Hispanic White (n=6) 

Poor vs.

High Income (n=6) 

Better Same Worse
For the 2009 NHDR, we conducted multivariate analyses on a number of measures of quality of care to

address the interrelationships among different demographic groups and socioeconomic factors, such as

income and insurance. These analyses generated adjusted percentages that control for multiple factors

simultaneously. In 9 of 12v regression models that focused on children or adults under age 65, uninsurance

was the single strongest predictor of quality of care, exceeding the effects of race, ethnicity, income, or

education. However, uninsurance did not explain all differences in care related to race, ethnicity, and

socioeconomic status, suggesting that mitigating uninsurance would greatly reduce but not completely

eliminate disparities in care.

Many Disparities Are Not Decreasing

Both categories of measures, quality of care and access to care, show that disparities persist for all

populations. Measures of quality include effectiveness (the percentage of patients with a disease or condition

who get recommended care), patient safety, and timeliness. Measures of access to care include health

insurance coverage, utilization of general health services, and barriers to care. The figures that follow

illustrate how disparities in quality and access have changed for each population during the past 5 years.

v Multivariate analyses were conducted for the following measures for which data were available: breast cancer screening,

children who did not have patient-centered care, children who received advice about healthy eating, children who sometimes

or never got care for illness or injury as soon as wanted, children ages 3-6 who ever had a vision check, adults with a dental

visit in the past year, diabetes patients who received recommended care, adults ages 18-64 uninsured all year, adults who did

not have patient-centered care, adults with a usual primary care provider, adult smokers with advice to quit smoking, and

adults who sometimes or never got care for illness or injury as soon as wanted. Uninsurance was not a predictor of quality for

children who reported a lack of patient-centered care, children who sometimes or never got care for illness or injury as soon as

wanted, and adult smokers with advice to quit smoking.

National Healthcare 5 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
Figure H.3. Distribution of changes over time in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities for

selected core quality measures, 2000-2002 to 2005-2007

Improving = Population-reference group difference becoming smaller at an average annual rate of 1% or greater.

Same = Population-reference group difference changing at an average annual rate of less than 1%.

Worsening = Population-reference group difference becoming larger at an average annual rate of 1% or greater.

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Note: Asian includes Asian or Pacific Islander when information is not collected separately for each group. Data presented are the

most recent data available. Measures presented here for racial and ethnic minority groups are a subset of the core measure set that

has data for all groups. Some measures for poor populations are different from the measures used for racial and ethnic groups.

u For Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, at least two-thirds of measures of quality of care are not improving

(gap either stayed the same or increased) (Figure H.3).

u For Blacks, only about 20% of measures of disparities in quality of care improved (gap decreased). 

u For poor people, disparities are improving for almost half of the quality measures.

u For AI/ANs, approximately 40% of disparities in quality improved.

Many Americans enjoy good access to primary and hospital care. For many populations, however, barriers

exist to getting needed health care, such as having no health insurance or having trouble getting

appointments. Reducing disparities in access to health care is an important step to improving overall quality.

Figure H.4 is a summary of trends in the core measures of access.

National Healthcare 6 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Same Worsening

Black vs.

White (n=19) 

4

6

9

10

8

5

9

5 4

8 6

4

8 3

6

Improving

Asian vs.

White (n=19) 

AI/AN vs.

White (n=19) 

Hispanic vs.

Non-Hispanic White (n=19) 

Poor vs.

High Income (n=19) 
Figure H.4. Distribution of changes over time in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities for

selected core access measures, 2000-2002 to 2005-2007

Improving = Population-reference group difference becoming smaller at an average annual rate of 1% or greater.

Same = Population-reference group difference changing at an average annual rate of less than 1%.

Worsening = Population-reference group difference becoming larger at an average annual rate of 1% or greater.

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Note: Asian includes Asian or Pacific Islander when information is not collected separately for each group. Data presented are the

most recent data available.

u For Asians and AI/ANs, an equal number of core measures of access improved and worsened 

(Figure H.4).

u For Blacks, more than 80% of the core measures used to track access remained unchanged (gap stayed

the same) or got worse (gap increased). However, the one measure that improved is notable. Over

time, the Black-White difference in health insurance coverage among people under age 65 decreased.

By 2007, the gap was not statistically significant.

u For Hispanics, two-thirds of core access measures improved (gap decreased).

u For poor populations, more than 60% of core access measures improved (gap decreased).

National Healthcare 7 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Same Worsening

Black vs.

White (n=6) 

1

3

4

2

4 5

1

2

1

3 1

1

Improving

Asian vs.

White (n=6) 

AI/AN vs.

White (n=4) 

Hispanic vs.

Non-Hispanic White (n=6) 

Poor vs.

High Income (n=8) 

2
Some Disparities Merit Particular Attention

As previous reports have shown, large disparities exist in many areas of health care. Although some

improvement has been seen in quality of care, closing the gap between groups remains a challenge. Often,

quality of care may improve for all groups, but gaps between groups may remain if interventions do not

specifically address disparities. The NHDR can be used to identify the most significant gaps that merit

particular attention. Two approaches for identifying important gaps are presented. One focuses on individual

populations and one examines patterns of disparities across populations.

An analysis of health care for each population allows targeting of resources and efforts to improve care and

narrow the gaps in care for racial and ethnic minorities and poor populations. Table H.1 presents an analysis

of the largest disparities or “biggest gaps” for each population. The biggest gaps are defined as those quality

measures with the largest relative rates between Whites and racial and ethnic minorities and between highincome and poor individuals. The relative rate quantifies how large the gap is compared with the reference

group. For example, a relative rate of 1.9 means that this population was almost twice as likely as the White

population to report that children did not receive advice about physical activity. 

The annual change shows the rate at which the gap is changing over time. A gap that is getting smaller with

time is considered evidence that the disparity is improving, while a gap that is getting larger is considered

evidence that the disparity is worsening. The time period used to calculate annual change varies by measure

(refer to the Data Tables appendix for available data years). Measures that have the largest disparities and are

worsening over time should be targeted for improvement.

Table H.1. Largest disparities for each population, relative rate compared with reference group and

annual percentage change

Group Measure Relative Annual Largest Largest

rate (2009) change disparity disparity 

and and 

improving worsening

over time over time

Black compared New AIDS cases per 100,000 

with White population age 13 and over 9.7 -10.2% *

Emergency department visits in which 

patients left without being seen 1.6 -2.0% *

Cancer deaths per 100,000 population

per year for colorectal cancer 1.5 1.1% *

Asian compared Children ages 2-17 who did not 

with White receive advice about physical activity 1.9 0.0%

Adults age 65 and over who did not 

ever receive pneumococcal *

vaccination 1.6 4.7%

Adults who can sometimes or never 

get care for illness or injury as soon 

as wanted 1.5 -2.9% *

National Healthcare 8 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
Table H.1. Largest disparities for each population, relative rate compared with reference group and

annual percentage change

Group Measure Relative Annual Largest Largest

rate (2009) change disparity disparity 

and and 

improving worsening

over time over time

American Indian/ Adults age 50 and over who did not 

Alaska Native receive colorectal cancer screening 1.4 7.7% *

compared with New AIDS cases per 100,000 

White population age 13 and over 1.4 -2.7% *

Composite: Hospital patients with 

heart failure who did not receive 

recommended hospital care 1.4 12.4% *

Hispanic New AIDS cases per 100,000 

compared with population age 13 and over 3.3 -4.2% *

Non-Hispanic Adults age 65 and over who did not 

White ever receive pneumococcal vaccination 1.8 2.4% *

Composite: Children whose parents 

reported poor communication with 

health providers 1.7 -5.5% *

Poor compared Composite: Children whose parents 

with high income reported poor communication with 

health providers 3.0 -10.2% *

Adults who can sometimes or never 

get care for illness or injury as soon 

as wanted 2.2 -2.8% *

Women age 40 and over who did 

not have a mammogram in the 

last 2 years 2.1 -6.5% * 

Note: Largest disparity and improving over time = Measures that had one of the three highest relative rates (largest gap) and a

decrease in the size of the gap over time. Largest disparities and worsening over time = Measures that had one of the three highest

relative rates and an increase in the size of the gap over time.

Some of the largest disparities were also areas where the most improvement has been achieved over time: 

u The largest disparities for Blacks, AI/ANs, and Hispanics included the rate of new AIDS cases. The

rate for Blacks was almost 10 times as high as the rate for Whites, for Hispanics more than 3 times as

high, and for AI/ANs 1.4 times as high. However, from 2000 to 2007, for Blacks, AI/ANs, and

Hispanics, this measure was among those with the greatest reduction in disparities for each group

(10.2% per year, 2.7% per year, and 4.2% per year, respectively; Table H.1).

National Healthcare 9 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
u The largest disparities for Asians and poor populations included a measure related to timeliness of care.

Asians were 1.5 times as likely as Whites to report they sometimes or never get care for illness or injury

as soon as wanted. Poor people were more than twice as likely as high-income people to report this

problem. However, from 2002 to 2006, this measure had one of the greatest reductions in disparities

over time in both groups (2.9% percent per year for Asians and 2.8% per year for poor people).

u Provider-patient communication reported for children was among those measures with the largest

disparities for Hispanics and poor populations. Hispanics were 1.7 times as likely as Whites and poor

people were 3 times as likely as high-income people to report poor provider-patient communication.

However, from 2001 to 2006, these groups also experienced large reductions in disparities for this

measure (5.5% improvement per year for Hispanics and 10.2% improvement per year for poor

populations).

Measures worth targeting for improvement include the following.

u From 2000 to 2005, disparities in colorectal cancer screening for AI/ANs have been worsening. The

gap between AI/ANs and Whites is increasing at a rate of 7.7% per year.

u From 2005 to 2007, disparities in hospital care for heart failure for AI/ANs have been worsening at a

rate of 12.4% per year.

u From 2000 to 2007, disparities in pneumococcal vaccination have been worsening for Asians and

Hispanics at a rate of 4.7% per year and 2.4% per year, respectively.

In addition to the disparities evident across individual priority populations, in some cases several different

populations experience the same gaps in care, perhaps reflecting similar barriers to quality care. Table H.2

shows the measures worsening for multiple groups.

Table H.2. Core measures that are getting worse for more than one racial and ethnic group compared

with reference group 

Topic Measure Blacks Asians AI/ANs Hispanics

Cancer Adults age 50 and over who report they ever received 

a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, proctoscopy, or 

fecal occult blood test * ** *

Cancer deaths per 100,000 population per year for 

colorectal cancer * *

Heart Hospital patients with heart failure who received 

disease recommended hospital care * *

Respiratory Adults age 65 and over who ever received 

disease pneumococcal vaccination * *

Hospital patients with pneumonia who received 

recommended hospital care * ** *

Note: A complete table of the disparities that worsened for specific populations can be found in Chapter 4, Priority Populations. 

National Healthcare 10 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
u Blacks, Asians, AI/ANs, and Hispanics all experienced disparities in the percentage of adults age 50 and

over who received a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, proctoscopy, or fecal occult blood test and in

recommended hospital care for pneumonia (Table H.2).

u Blacks and Hispanics both had worsening disparities in colorectal cancer mortality from 2000 to 2006.

u AI/ANs and Hispanics had worsening disparities in the recommended hospital care for heart failure

from 2005 to 2007.

u Asians and Hispanics both had worsening disparities in pneumococcal vaccination for adults age 65 and

over from 2000 to 2007. 

Findings from the 2009 NHDR show that disparities in care for cancer, heart failure, and pneumonia exist

across populations. Although quality of hospital care for heart failure and pneumonia has improved overall,

care for Whites continues to improve at a higher rate than for minority populations. Thus, quality

improvement has not necessarily translated to disparities reduction, which is critical for high-quality care.

Low rates of colorectal cancer screening and other cancer screenings may be due to cultural attitudes and

patient perceptions, such as the belief that screening is not necessary. In addition, patients may have

problems paying for followup visits to complete screening and may have logistical problems getting to

appointments. Similarly, pneumococcal vaccination rates may be lower for Blacks and Asians because of

distrust in the effectiveness of vaccines and perceptions that vaccines are not necessary. 

Efforts Are Needed To Accelerate Improvement 

This 2009 report summarizes the areas where health care disparities have improved and where they have not.

But national reports will not eliminate disparities by themselves. Building on information contained in the

NHDR and NHQR, HHS organizations are implementing an exciting range of programs that seek to reduce

disparities and accelerate the pace of health care quality improvement for all Americans. As individual,

community, social, and health system factors contribute to health care disparities, multiple strategies exist to

address these factors. Efforts have focused on training health care professionals; raising awareness among

health care professionals and patients; and changing health systems at the hospital, provider, and community

levels.

Train Providers

Cultural expectations, assumptions, and language affect the quality of care patients receive. Some efforts

have focused on training health care personnel to deliver culturally and linguistically competent care for

diverse populations: 

u The Think Cultural Health Web site (http://www.thinkculturalhealth.org) is sponsored by the Office

of Minority Health (OMH). This site offers the latest resources and tools to promote cultural

competency in health care. Users can access free online courses accredited for continuing education

credit, such as “A Physician’s Practical Guide to Culturally Competent Care” and “Culturally

Competent Nursing Care.” The site also provides supplementary tools, including the “Health Care

Language Services Implementation Guide,” to help providers and organizations promote respectful,

understandable, and effective care to an increasingly diverse patient population. 

National Healthcare 11 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
u The Unified Health Communication Web-Based Training Program is sponsored by the Health

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). This interactive training course introduces a unified

health communication concept called “Unified Health Communication (UHC) 100/101: Addressing

Health Literacy, Cultural Competency, and Limited English Proficiency.” The UHC 100/101 course

explores three crucial areas that can affect provider-patient communication: health literacy, cultural

competency, and limited English proficiency. Each of these three components can influence various

aspects of health communication. In combination, they can have an even greater impact on improving

health care delivery, reducing health disparities, and empowering patients to become more involved in

their own health management to enhance their quality of life. This course is currently used across a

variety of health care delivery venues. Its use underscores the importance of clear health

communication through the discussion of innovative approaches by health care providers.

u The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the sole HHS agency with the authority to enforce Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color,

or national origin in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance. OCR enforces

Title VI by providing technical assistance and training to health care providers and human service

agencies; investigating race, color, and national origin discrimination complaints filed by individuals

and advocacy groups; and resolving those complaints through corrective action and voluntary

compliance agreements.vi OCR, for example, recently collaborated with Medco, the nation’s largest

mail-order pharmacy, in its development of a multifaceted plan to improve services to limited-Englishproficient consumers. In addition, OCR, in partnership with the National Consortium for Multicultural

Education, funded by the National Institutes of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,

recently published a curriculum on cultural competency in medicine that incorporates Title VI

compliance. The OCR curriculum, “Stopping Discrimination Before It Starts: The Impact of Civil

Rights Laws on Health Care Disparities–A Medical School Curriculum,” was published in the

Association of American Medical College’s MedEdPORTAL (http://www.aamc.org/mededportal). This

portal is a Web-based tool that facilitates the nationwide exchange of high-quality, peer-reviewed

educational materials.

Raise Awareness

Other efforts to address health care disparities leverage key partnerships to raise awareness of disparities by

using data and research: 

u The Health Disparities Roundtable was convened in 2006 under cosponsorship by OMH and AHRQ

and in partnership with the Institute of Medicine. The roundtable generates action and engages

interested parties from academia, industry, government, philanthropy, the corporate sector, and the

community to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities. It fills an important role as a focus for publicprivate research partnerships and policy discussions to address various topics. These include: (1) ways

to bring together health-care focused and broader community-based approaches to address disparities

more effectively; (2) strategies to expand and strengthen research to develop effective treatments for

those diseases that disproportionately affect minority populations, as well as research that focuses on 

vi For technical assistance or more information on filing a complaint, the HHS Office for Civil Rights may be contacted at

(202) 619-0403, OCRmail@hhs.gov, or http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/complaints/index.html.

National Healthcare 12 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
the complex interactions of biologic and social factors as determinants of health; (3) effective cultural

competency techniques and cross-cultural education in health care settings; (4) educational strategies to

end health disparities; (5) development and promotion of effective strategies to increase minority

representation in medicine and health professions; and (6) understanding of the causes of health and

health care disparities and best solutions.

u The Federal Collaboration on Health Disparities Research (FCHDR) was developed by the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with OMH and cosponsored by AHRQ.

FCHDR identifies and supports research priorities for cross-agency collaboration to hasten the

elimination of health disparities. This collaboration is led by the HHS Health Disparities Council and

the Interagency Committee on Disability Research of the Department of Education. Through FCHDR,

Federal partners have formed subject matter expert workgroups around four initial research topic areas

for collaboration: obesity, built environment (homes, schools, workplaces, parks and recreation areas,

business areas, transportation systems, etc.), mental health care, and comorbidities. These priorities

represent opportunities for Federal agencies and other partners to collaborate on innovative research.

u The Disparity Reducing Advances Project is a multiyear, multistakeholder project cosponsored by

AHRQ and others, including CDC, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, Central

Florida Family Health Center, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the University of Texas

Medical Branch. This project identifies the most promising strategies for bringing health gains to poor

and underserved populations and accelerating the development and deployment of these strategies to

reduce health care disparities.

u The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Health Disparities Program allows CMS to

develop a health care forum that encompasses public and private partnerships to address health

disparities nationwide through a common message. The focus of this program is to improve health

literacy and outcomes through three overarching functions: (1) align CMS and Federal resources to

provide a solid foundation for messaging on health disparities activities and projects, (2) standardize

elements throughout the Quality Improvement Organization 9th Scope of Work themes for the health

disparities program, and (3) work with internal and external stakeholders to advance health disparities

planning objectives. The Health Disparities Program is achieving these goals by using several methods,

such as grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, health

disparities forums, newsletters throughout statewide programs, plenary sessions at conferences, and

collaborations with national organizations, such as the Administration on Aging, OMH, and National

Institutes of Health. 

u Healthy People 2020 is a comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention agenda. It has four

overarching goals: (1) eliminate preventable disease, disability, injury, and premature death; 

(2) achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all group; (3) create social

and physical environments that promote good health for all; and (4) promote healthy development and

healthy behaviors across every stage of life. Through a national consensus process, HHS identifies

specific objectives for improving the health of the Nation, establishes baseline values for the objectives,

and sets specific targets to be achieved by 2020. Agencies across HHS and in other Federal

departments are involved in pursuing this agenda. Progress toward the achievement of these goals and

objectives is monitored by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. 

National Healthcare 13 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
u The Health Disparities Calculator (HD*Calc) is a statistical software program that generates multiple

summary measures for evaluating and monitoring health disparities. Data such as cancer rates, survival,

and stage at diagnosis, which are categorized by groups such as ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status,

and geographic areas, can be used with HD*Calc to generate 11 absolute and relative summary

measures of disparity. It can be used either as an extension of SEER*Stat, which allows users to import

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, or on its own with other population-based

health data, such as from the National Health Interview Survey, California Health Interview Survey,

Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, and National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey. HD*Calc is located on the SEER Web site at http://seer.cancer.gov/hdcalc/. This

work is supported by the Surveillance Research Program and Applied Research Program within the

Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute.

Form Partnerships To Identify and Test Solutions

Other partnerships leverage both public and private partners to address health care disparities at the

community and provider level:

u The AHRQ National Health Plan Collaborative (NHPC), which has 11 participating health plans

with a total of 87 million enrollees, is cofunded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. NHPC

identifies and implements approaches to reducing racial and ethnic disparities and to improving quality

among health plan enrollees. In Phase II of the collaborative, three task forces addressed primary data

collection and language access and are building the business case for reducing disparities. The

collaborative builds on the continued interest of health plans in reducing disparities and improving

health care for minorities. Members of the collaborative have developed a toolkit that will serve as the

core vehicle to share NHPC’s findings and recommendations. The toolkit will be a Web-based

searchable database of tools, research, statistics, case studies, and lessons learned. Users will be able to

search the tool according to their needs, resulting in a personalized page of information and resources.

The toolkit will enable other health plans or stakeholders to implement interventions or methods to

address disparities and will provide lessons learned and best practices for reducing disparities. 

u An HHS pilot project, Improving Hispanic Elders’ Health: Community Partnerships for EvidenceBased Solutions, is bringing together teams of local leaders from communities with large numbers of

Hispanic elders to develop local plans for addressing health disparities. Teams cut across organizational

boundaries and include representatives from the local area agency on aging, Hispanic community

organizations, the local public health agency, aging services providers, the medical community, and

health service research organizations. AHRQ, the Administration on Aging, CDC, CMS, and HRSA are

assisting teams to develop coordinated strategies for improving the health and well-being of Hispanic

elders. Eight communities with sizable disparities participate in this pilot project: Chicago, Illinois;

Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; McAllen, Texas; Miami, Florida; New York, New York; San

Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Information from the NHDR and customized data created

by AHRQ for each community have helped target interventions to specific neighborhoods in greatest

need of particular services.

National Healthcare 14 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
u The National Partnership for Action (NPA) To End Health Disparities

(http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/npa), launched by OMH, is a multifaceted effort to mobilize and connect

individuals and organizations across the country to create a Nation free of health disparities, with

quality health outcomes for all people. The NPA is composed of three components: (1) National Plan

for Action; (2) 10 Regional Blueprints aligned with the National Plan for Action that include strategies

and actions most pertinent to communities in each region; and (3) targeted initiatives that will be

undertaken by partners across the public and private sectors in support of the NPA. An example of an

NPA initiative is the National Business Group on Health (NBGH) Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities Advisory Board. This advisory board facilitates alliances between business, medicine, and

public health organizations to improve the quality of health care for racial and ethnic minority

populations while promoting beneficiary health and employee productivity. Products include issue

briefs on topics such as why companies are making health disparities their business and how health

plans view health disparities. The board holds several Web conferences featuring best practices by a

wide range of employers. 

Conclusion

Reducing disparities in health care requires measurement and reporting, but these are not the ultimate goals.

The fundamental purpose of examining disparities is to ensure that health care improves the lives of all

patients and their families, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. The NHDR concentrates on

tracking disparities in health care at the national level, but the statistics reported in the NHDR and NHQR

reflect the aggregated everyday experiences of patients and their doctors and nurses across the Nation. It

makes a difference in people’s lives when breast cancer is diagnosed early with timely mammography; when

a patient suffering from a heart attack is given the correct lifesaving treatment in a timely fashion; when

medications are correctly administered; and when doctors listen to their patients and their families, show

them respect, and answer their questions. 

Since its initial publication in 2003, the NHDR has provided a broad and detailed examination of disparities

for at-risk priority populations in U.S. health care. The ability to monitor and track changes in disparities is

critical. Growing interest in public reporting for quality improvement activities continues to be an impetus to

improve not only the quality of data but also the quality of care provided.

This 2009 report summarizes the many areas where little to no progress has been achieved in reducing

disparities. However, it also highlights progress that is being made in key conditions that disproportionately

affect priority populations. Many factors contribute to disparities in health care quality and access, and it is a

major challenge to address them. Yet a number of promising programs at HHS, such as those described here,

are doing just that. The activities described are only a few of the many efforts of HHS organizations that

address the challenges in reducing health care disparities. Other HHS agencies are contributing in many

other ways to address disparities in health service delivery, health care finance, and clinical research in

addition to both Federal and State efforts to expand access. What they have in common are the focus on

multiple stakeholders and the need for tailored solutions depending on the particular disparities and

populations involved. 

National Healthcare 15 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
With the publication of this seventh NHDR, AHRQ stands ready to contribute to efforts such as those above

to encourage and support the development of national, State, Tribal, and neighborhood solutions using

national data and benchmarks in disparities. We hope that the progress and gaps outlined in this NHDR will

help policymakers ensure that all patients receive the health care they need to make their lives better. 

National Healthcare 16 Disparities Report, 2009

Highlights
National Healthcare 17 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods

In 1999, Congress directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to produce an annual

report, starting in 2003, to track “prevailing disparities in health care delivery as it relates to racial factors and

socioeconomic factors in priority populations.” Although the emphasis is on disparities related to race,

ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors, this directive includes a charge to examine disparities in “priority

populations”—groups with unique health care needs or issues that require special focus. AHRQ, with

support from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and private-sector partners, designed and

produced the National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR) to respond to this legislative mandate.

The first NHDR was a comprehensive national overview of disparities in health care among racial, ethnic,

and socioeconomici groups in the general U.S. population and within priority populations. This 2009 NHDR

represents the seventh release of this report. It continues to focus on a subset of core measures that make up

the most important and scientifically supported measures in the full NHDR measure set. The report also

includes trends in health care disparities, as well as the degree to which health care disparities for racial and

ethnic minorities and poor populations have lessened.

This chapter summarizes AHRQ’s methodological approach to producing the 2009 NHDR. Issues related to

changes in measures, additional data sources, and modifications to presentation format are summarized

below. Material that is new in this year’s report is specifically highlighted and includes:

u A new section on Lifestyle Modification. Measures include:

• Counseling smokers to quit smoking.

• Advice to obese adults about healthy eating.

u A new section on Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation. Measures include:

• Older women who reported being screened for osteoporosis.

• Adult home health care patients whose ability to walk or move around improved.

u A new section on Supportive and Palliative Care (changed from Nursing Home, Home Health, and

Hospice Care). Measures include:

• Long-stay nursing home residents with physical restraints.

• High-risk long-stay nursing home residents and short-stay residents with pressure sores.

• Adult home health care patients who were admitted to the hospital.

• Hospice patient caregivers who perceived patient was not referred to hospice at the right time.

• Hospice patients who did not receive the right amount of medicine for pain.

u Additional data on timeliness of care that include hospital patients with heart attack who received

percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes.

i Socioeconomic disparities include differences in education and income levels.
u A focus in the Patient Safety section on health care-acquired infections that includes a measure on

surgery patients who received appropriate timing of antibiotics.

u Data on the diversity of dental professionals in the workforce.

u A focus in the Patient Centeredness section on measures of care coordination, including:

• Patients who reported that they always received test results.

• Adult hospital patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions.

u A new measure in Chapter 3, Access to Health Care, on the high financial burden of health care.

u Supplemental data on Asian and Hispanic subpopulations, including:

• Colorectal cancer screening.

• Influenza vaccinations.

• Diabetes care.

• Provider-patient communication.

• Uninsurance.

u Additional data on Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (NHOPIs),ii including:

• Cholesterol screening.

• Colorectal cancer screening.

• Hospitalizations for pneumonia.

• Difficulty getting care due to cost.

u Supplemental data on American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), including:

• Uncontrolled diabetes.

• Perforated appendixes.

u Additional data on birth-related trauma in the section on Women.

u Additional data on heart attack mortality in the section on Residents of Rural Areas.

u Continued expanded focus on individuals with disabilities, including:

• Delayed dental care.

• Dental visits.

• High financial burden of health care.

As in previous years, the 2009 NHDR was planned and written by AHRQ staff with the support of AHRQ’s

National Advisory Council and the Interagency Work Group for the NHDR, which includes representatives

from every HHS operating component. 

ii Due to scarcity of health care data for this population, this report has supplemented national estimates (which often do not

meet statistical reliability criteria for reporting) with State-level data. More information can be found in Chapter 4. 

National Healthcare 18 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
How This Report Is Organized

The basic structure of the 2009 NHDR includes the following chapters:

u Highlights summarizes key themes and highlights from the 2009 report.

u Chapter 1: Introduction and Methods documents the organization, data sources, and methods used

in the 2009 report and describes major changes from previous reports.

u Chapter 2: Quality of Health Care examines disparities in quality of health care in the general U.S.

population. Measures of quality of health care used in this chapter are identical to measures used in the

National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) except when data to examine disparities are unavailable.

Sections cover four components of health care quality:

• Effectiveness. (Eight clinical areas: cancer, diabetes, end stage renal disease, heart disease, HIV and 

AIDS, maternal and child health, mental health and substance abuse, and respiratory diseases; and 

three types of health care services that typically cut across clinical conditions: lifestyle 

modification, functional status preservation and rehabilitation, and supportive and palliative care).

• Patient safety.

• Timeliness.

• Patient centeredness.

u Chapter 3: Access to Health Care examines disparities in access to health care in the general U.S.

population. Sections cover two components of health care access:

• Barriers and facilitators to health care.

• Health care utilization.

u Chapter 4: Priority Populations examines disparities in quality of and access to health care among

AHRQ’s priority populations, including: 

• Racial and ethnic minorities.

• Recent immigrant and limited-English-proficient populations.

• Low-income groups.

• Women.

• Children.

• Older adults.

• Residents of rural areas.

• Individuals with disabilities and special health care needs.

National Healthcare 19 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
The following appendixes are available online (www.ahrq.gov):

u Data Sources provides information about each database analyzed for the NHDR, including data type,

sample design, and primary content.

u Detailed Methods provides detailed methods for selected databases analyzed for the NHDR.

u Measure Specifications provides information about how to generate each measure analyzed for the

NHDR. It includes measures highlighted in the report text, as well as other measures that were

examined but not included in the text. It also includes information about the summary measures used in

the report.

u Data Tables provides detailed tables for most measures analyzed for the NHDR, including measures

highlighted in the report text, as well as other measures that were examined but not included in the text.

A few measures cannot support detailed tables and are not included in the appendix.iii When data are

available: 

• Race tables and ethnicity tables are stratified by age, gender, geographic location, and one or more 

socioeconomic variables (i.e., household income, education, insurance, and/or area income).

• Socioeconomic tables are stratified by age, gender, geographic location, race, and ethnicity.

Presentation of the Measure Set

Core Measures

This 2009 NHDR continues to focus on a consistent subset of measures, the “core” measures, which includes

the most important and scientifically supported measures in the full NHDR measure set. In 2005, the

Interagency Work Group selected the core measures from the full measure sets, and findings based on these

measures are presented each year. In addition, “noncore” measures are included in summary statistics and

may be presented to complement core measures in key areas. For some topics, the NHDR uses alternating

sets of core measures. These measures, which relate to cancer prevention and childhood preventive services,

are listed in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Alternating core measures

Reported in 2008 NHQR and NHDR* Reported in 2009 NHQR and NHDR

Colorectal cancer screening Breast cancer screening (mammography)

Colorectal cancer mortality Breast cancer mortality

Colorectal cancer diagnosis at advanced stage Breast cancer diagnosis at advanced stage

Children who received advice about physical activity Children who received advice about healthy eating

Children who had a vision check Children who had dental care

*The measures listed in this column will be reported in the 2010 reports. 

iii NHDR data can be accessed through NHQRDRnet, an online tool that provides Internet users with an opportunity to specify

dimensions of analysis and produce data tables. NHQRDRnet is available through the AHRQ Web site at

http://nhqrnet.ahrq.gov/.

National Healthcare 20 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
All core measures fall into two categories: process measures, which track receipt of medical services, and

outcome measures, which in part reflect the results of medical care (Table 1.2). Not all process and outcome

measures are reported for all conditions due to data limitations and other limitations (refer to Chapter 1 of the

2005 NHDR for core report measure selection criteria). 

Ideally, process measures and the outcome measures they could affect would be tracked in tandem. However,

data to support such process-outcome measurement pairs are not typically available. Related process and

outcome measures in the 2009 NHDR core measure set are listed in Table 1.2. Other core measures are

listed in Table 1.3.

Table 1.2. Related core process and outcome measures (Measures that include data for all racial and

ethnic groups and that are included in the summary analyses in the Highlights to this report are in

italics.)

Section Process measures Outcome measures

Effectiveness—Cancer • Adults age 50 and over who received colorectal • Colorectal cancer diagnosed

cancer screening at advanced stage

• Women age 40 and over who received a • Colorectal cancer deaths per

mammogram in the last 2 years 100,000 population per year

• Breast cancer diagnosed 

at advanced stage

• Breast cancer deaths per 

100,000 female population 

per year

Effectiveness—Diabetes • Composite: Adults age 40 and over with diagnosed • Hospital admissions for

diabetes who received all three recommended diabetes with short-term

services for diabetes in the calendar year complications per 100,000 

population age 

18 and over* 

Effectiveness—Mental • Adults with a major depressive episode in the last • Suicide deaths per 

Health and Substance 12 months who received treatment for depression in 100,000 population

Abuse the last 12 months

• People age 12 and over who needed treatment for 

any illicit drug use or alcohol problem and who 

received such treatment at a specialty facility in the 

last 12 months

Effectiveness— • Long-stay nursing home residents with physical • High-risk long-stay nursing

Supportive and restraints home residents and shortPaliative Care stay residents with pressure 

sores

• Adult home health care 

patients who were admitted 

to the hospital

*Not included in core measure counts in 2009.

National Healthcare 21 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Table 1.2. Related core process and outcome measures (Measures that include data for all racial and

ethnic groups and that are included in the summary analyses in the Highlights to this report are in

italics.)

Section Process measures Outcome measures

Priority Populations— • Women who completed a pregnancy in the last 12 • Infant deaths per 1,000 live

Women months who first received prenatal care in the births, birth weight <1,500 

first trimester. grams

Priority Populations— • Composite: Children ages 19-35 months who (No outcomes for child health

Children received all recommended vaccines are currently tracked in the

• Children ages 2-17 for whom a health provider ever NHDR core measure set.)

gave advice about physical activity

• Children ages 2-17 for whom a health provider ever 

gave advice about healthy eating

• Children ages 3-6 who ever had their vision 

checked by a health provider

• Children ages 2-17 who had a dental visit in the 

calendar year

National Healthcare 22 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Table 1.3 Other core process and outcome measures

Section Process measures Outcome measures

Effectiveness—End • Dialysis patients registered on waiting list for • Adult hemodialysis patients

Stage Renal Disease transplantation with adequate dialysis 

Effectiveness— • Composite: Hospital patients with heart attack • Deaths per 1,000 adult

Heart Disease who received recommended hospital care hospital admissions with

• Composite: Hospital patients with heart failure acute myocardial infarction

who received recommended hospital care 

Effectiveness— (HIV process measures tracked in the NHDR • New AIDS cases per

HIV and AIDS are noncore.) 100,000 population age 13

and over

Effectiveness— • Adults age 65 and over who ever received • Patients with tuberculosis

Respiratory Diseases pneumococcal vaccination who completed a curative

• Composite: Hospital patients with pneumonia course of treatment within 1

who received recommended hospital care year of initiation of treatment

Effectiveness— • Adult current smokers with a checkup in the (No outcomes of lifestyle

Lifestyle Modification last 12 months who received advice to modification are currently 

quit smoking tracked in the NHDR.)

• Adults with obesity who ever received advice 

from a health provider to exercise more

Effectiveness— • Screening for osteoporosis in women • Adult home health care

Functional Status patients whose ability to 

Preservation and walk or move around 

Rehabilitation improved

Effectiveness— • Composite: Adult surgery patients who received • Composite: Adult surgery 

Patient Safety appropriate timing of antibiotics patients with postoperative

• Adults age 65 and over who received potentially complications 

inappropriate prescription medications in the • Composite: Bloodstream 

calendar year infections or mechanical

adverse events associated 

with central venous 

catheter placements

• Deaths per 1,000 discharges 

with complications potentially

resulting from care (failure 

to rescue), adults ages 18-74

Effectiveness—Timeliness • Adults who can sometimes 

or never get care for illness 

or injury as soon as wanted

• Emergency department 

visits in which patients left 

without being seen

National Healthcare 23 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Table 1.3 Other core process and outcome measures

Section Process measures Outcome measures

Effectiveness— • Composite: Adult ambulatory patients who 

Patient Centeredness reported poor communication with health providers

• Composite: Children with ambulatory visits 

whose parents reported poor communication 

with health providers 

Access • People under age 65 with health insurance

• People under age 65 who were uninsured all year 

• People without a usual source of care who 

indicated a financial or insurance reason for not 

having a source of care

• People with a specific source of ongoing care

• People with a usual primary care provider

• Composite: People who were unable to get or 

delayed in getting needed medical care, dental 

care, or prescription medicines in the last 12 months

Note: Beginning with the 2008 NHDR, all alternating core measures are included in the summary of core measures in order to show

consistent measures in the Highlights chapter of each year of the NHDR. Table 1.1 lists all alternating core measures.

Composite Measures

Policymakers and others have voiced their support for composite measures because these measures can be

used to facilitate understanding of information from many different measures. The effort to develop new

composites is ongoing. In 2006, a number of new composite measures were added.iv Composite measures,

which now make up about 20% of the core measures, are listed in Table 1.4.

Composite measures in the NHDR and NHQR are created in a variety of different ways. When possible, an

appropriateness model is used to create composite measures. It is sometimes referred to as the “all-or-none”

approach because it is calculated based on the number of patients who received all appropriate services. One

example of this model is the diabetes composite, in which a patient who receives only one or two of the three

services would not be counted as having received the recommended care.

In cases where insufficient data are available to apply an appropriateness model, an opportunities model may

be applied. The opportunities model assumes that each patient needs and has the opportunity to receive one

or more processes of care but not all patients need the same care. Composite measures that use this model

summarize the proportion of appropriate care that is delivered. The denominator for an opportunities model

composite is the sum of opportunities to receive appropriate care across a panel of process measures. 

iv Refer to Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods, in the 2006 NHQR for more detailed information about these and other

methods that are used to calculate composite measures shown in the reports. Available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhqr06/

report/Chap1.htm.

National Healthcare 24 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
The numerator is the sum of the appropriate services that are actually delivered. The composite measure of

recommended hospital care for heart attack is an example where this model is applied. The total number of

patients who actually receive treatments represented by individual components of the composite measure

(e.g., aspirin therapy within 24 hours, beta blocker within 24 hours, smoking cessation counseling) is divided

by the sum of all of these opportunities to receive appropriate care.

Composite measures that relate to rates of complications of hospital care are postoperative complications and

complications of central venous catheters. For these complication rate composites, an additive model is used

that sums individual complication rates. Thus, for these composites, the numerator is the sum of individual

complications and the denominator is the number of patients at risk for these complications. The composite

rates are presented as the overall rate of complications. The postoperative complications composite is a good

example of this type of composite measure: If 50 patients had a total of 15 complications among them

(regardless of their distribution), the composite score would be 30%. 

Table 1.4. Composite measures in the 2009 NHQR and NHDR 

Composite measure Individual measures forming composite Model 

Receipt of three • Adults age 40 and over with diagnosed diabetes who Appropriateness

recommended diabetes had a hemoglobin A1c measurement in the calendar year

services • Adults age 40 and over with diagnosed diabetes who 

had a dilated eye examination in the calendar year

• Adults age 40 and over with diagnosed diabetes who 

had a foot examination in the calendar year

Childhood immunization • Children ages 19-35 months who received 4 doses of Appropriateness 

diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine

• Children ages 19-35 months who received 3 doses of 

polio vaccine

• Children ages 19-35 months who received 1 dose of 

measles-mumps-rubella vaccine

• Children ages 19-35 months who received 3 doses of 

Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine

• Children ages 19-35 months who received 3 doses of 

hepatitis B vaccine

Recommended hospital • Hospital patients with heart failure who received an Opportunities

care for heart failure evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction

• Hospital patients with heart failure and left ventricular 

systolic dysfunction who were prescribed ACE inhibitor 

or ARB* at discharge

National Healthcare 25 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Table 1.4. Composite measures in the 2009 NHQR and NHDR 

Composite measure Individual measures forming composite Model 

Recommended hospital • Hospital patients with pneumonia who had blood Opportunities

care for pneumonia cultures collected before antibiotics were administered

• Hospital patients with pneumonia who received the 

initial antibiotic dose within 6 hours of hospital arrival

• Hospital patients with pneumonia who received the 

initial antibiotic consistent with current recommendations

• Hospital patients with pneumonia who received influenza

screening or vaccination

• Hospital patients with pneumonia who received 

pneumococcal screening or vaccination

Timing of antibiotics to • Adult surgery patients who received prophylactic Opportunities

prevent postoperative antibiotics within 1 hour prior to surgical incision 

wound infection • Adult surgery patients who had prophylactic antibiotics 

discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time

Patients’ experience • Adult ambulatory patients whose providers sometimes Consumer

of care or never listened carefully to them Assessment of 

• Adult ambulatory patients whose providers sometimes Healthcare

or never explained things in a way they could understand Providers and

• Adult ambulatory patients whose providers sometimes Systems

or never showed respect for what they had to say (CAHPS®)

• Adult ambulatory patients whose providers sometimes 

or never spent enough time with them

• Children with ambulatory visits whose parents report 

that their child’s providers sometimes or never listened 

carefully to them

• Children with ambulatory visits whose parents report 

that their child’s providers sometimes or never 

explained things in a way they could understand

• Children with ambulatory visits whose parents report 

that their child’s providers sometimes or never showed 

respect for what they had to say

• Children with ambulatory visits whose parents report 

that their child’s providers sometimes or never spent 

enough time with them

Postoperative • Adult surgery patients with postoperative pneumonia Additive

complications events

• Adult surgery patients with postoperative venous 

thromboembolic events

Complications of central • Bloodstream infections among central venous Additive

venous catheters catheter placements

• Mechanical adverse events among central venous 

catheter placements

* ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker.

National Healthcare 26 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Presentation of Disparities

The 2009 NHDR and its companion NHQR continue to be formatted as chartbooks. The 2009 reports have

been improved to show charts and data in a more readable format and to provide more concise summaries of

the findings in each chart.

Each section in the 2009 report begins with a description of the importance of the section’s topic in a

standardized format. After introductory text, chart figures and accompanying findings highlight a small

number of core measures relevant to this topic. When data are available, these charts typically show

contrasts by:

u Race—Blacks, Asians,v NHOPIs, AI/ANs, and people of more than one race compared with Whites.

u Ethnicity—Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites.vi

u Income—Poor, near-poor, and middle-income people compared with high-income people.vii

u Education—People with less than a high school education and high school graduates compared with

people with any college education.

u Geographic location—People who reside in micropolitan (total) areas are compared with metropolitan

(total) areas. Within metropolitan areas, people who reside in large central, large fringe, medium, or

small metropolitan areas are compared with metropolitan (total). Within nonmetropolitan areas, people

who reside in micropolitan and noncore statistical areas are compared with nonmetropolitan (total).

Refer to Chapter 4, Residents of Rural Areas, for further information on definitions and methods.

Almost all core measures and composite measures have multiple years of data, so figures typically illustrate

trends over time. When data support stratified analyses, a figure showing racial and ethnic differences

stratified by socioeconomic factors is included. These data are summarized in bullet format. Figures include

a note about the reference group for population-based measures and the denominator for measures based on

services or events.

For some measures with supporting data, regression models were run and used to help interpret bivariate and

stratified results. (These are discussed in more detail in the Bivariate and Multivariate Analyses section,

below.)viii

v Asian includes the former category of Asian or Pacific Islander prior to Office of Management and Budget guidelines when

information is not collected separately for each group.

vi Not all data sources used in the NHDR collect data by race and ethnicity separately (e.g., allowing for comparisons of

Blacks with Whites and Hispanics with non-Hispanic Whites). In such cases, comparisons are made by combined

racial/ethnic categories (e.g., comparing non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics with non-Hispanic Whites).

vii Throughout this report, poor is defined as having family income less than 100% of the Federal poverty level; near poor,

between 100% and 199%; middle income, between 200% and 399%; and high income, 400% or more of the Federal poverty

level. These are based on U.S. Census poverty thresholds for each data year, which are used for statistical purposes, unlike

HHS poverty guidelines used for programmatic purposes.

viii The measures are obese adults given advice about exercise and individuals having a usual primary care provider.

National Healthcare 27 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Gaps between priority populations and the reference group are characterized as growing larger, getting

smaller, or not changing. This is part of the effort by HHS and AHRQ to provide information on where the

Nation is—and is not—making progress in reducing disparities in health care.

Findings presented in the text meet report criteria for importanceix; comparisons not discussed in the text do

not meet these criteria. However, absence of differences that meet criteria for importance should not be

interpreted as absence of disparities. Often, large differences between groups did not meet criteria for

statistical significance because of small sample sizes and limited power. In addition, significance testing

used in this report does not take into account multiple comparisons.

Effectiveness measures for each condition or care setting are organized further into categories that reflect the

patient’s need for preventive care, treatment of acute illness, or management of chronic conditions. Further

detail on each of these categories and the measures included can be found in Chapter 2, Quality of Health Care.

Trends in Health Care Quality and Access

As in previous NHDRs, the 2009 report uses the earliest and most recent available NHDR data estimates for

each measure to calculate average annual rate of change for the general U.S. population and for each racial,

ethnic, and socioeconomic group. Consistent with Health, United States,

1 the geometric rate of change,

which assumes the same rate each year between the two time periods, has been calculated for the 2009

NHDR and NHQR.x

Two criteria are applied to determine whether a significant trend exists:

u First, the difference between the oldest and most recent estimates must be statistically significant at

alpha=0.05.

u Second, the average annual rate of change must be at least 1% to be considered statistically significant

when the measures are framed either as a favorable outcome or as an adverse outcome.

For example, assume that a favorable outcome, receipt of a needed service, increased from 90% to 94% over

a 5-year period. To assess meaningfulness, statistical significance of this difference would first be assessed

using a two-tailed test. If significant with alpha≤0.05, the average annual rate of change would then be

calculated using the geometric rate of change formula. In this case, [(94/90)1/5–1] x 100 yields an average

annual rate of change of 0.9% per year, less than our threshold of 1% per year. The measure is then

converted into an adverse outcome, lack of receipt of a needed service, which decreased from 10% to 6%

over the time period. Applying the geometric rate of change formula, [(6/10)1/5–1] x 100, yields an average

annual rate of change of –9.7% per year. Because this rate of change with the measure framed negatively as

an adverse outcome exceeds our 1% threshold, we consider this change to be meaningful.

ix Criteria for importance are that the difference is statistically significant at the alpha=0.05 level, two-tailed test, and that the

relative difference is at least 10% different from the reference group when framed positively as a favorable outcome or

negatively as an adverse outcome.

x The geometric rate of change assumes that a measure increases or decreases at the same rate during each year between two

time periods. It is calculated using the following formula: [(VY/VZ)1/N−1] × 100, where VY is the most recent year’s value,

VZ is the most distant year’s value, and N is the number of years in the interval. Refer to the entry for Average Annual Rate

of Change in Appendix II, Definitions and Methods, Health, United States, 2007 (available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus.htm).

National Healthcare 28 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Only changes over time that meet these criteria are discussed in the 2009 reports. Changes in disparities are

categorized as follows:

u Core measures for which the relative differences are changing less than 1% per year are identified as

staying the same.

u Core measures for which the relative differences are becoming smaller at a rate of more than 1% per

year in the same direction are identified as improving.

u Core measures for which the relative differences are becoming larger at a rate of more than 1% per year

in the same direction are identified as worsening.

u Changes of greater than 5% per year are also differentiated from changes between 1% and 5% per year

in some figures.

An additional constraint relates to trends among specific racial and ethnic groups. Different Federal

databases completed transition to the new Federal standards for racial and ethnic data that were required by

2003 at different times. These new standards created two separate racial categories: Asian and NHOPI. In

addition, individuals could report more than one race. Since a large proportion of AI/ANs identify as mixed

race, many AI/ANs may be categorized as more than one race. In contrast, effects on estimates for Whites,

Blacks, and Hispanics were proportionately much smaller. Therefore, the 2009 NHDR, as in the previous

year, shows shorter trends (i.e., fewer years of data) for groups directly or significantly affected by the new

standards, such as Asian, NHOPI, AI/AN, and multiple-race individuals.

Bivariate and Multivariate Analyses

Bivariate analyses are included for some measures for which data are available to examine the

interrelationship between race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors. This year, the NHDR also examines the

interrelationship between insurance status and income for quality of care in more depth. This relationship is

shown for some selected measures through the use of bivariate analyses in Chapter 4, Priority Populations.

To further address the interrelationships among different demographic groups and socioeconomic factors,

such as income and insurance, multivariate analyses were conducted for a small number of measures.xi These

analyses generated adjusted percentages that control for multiple factors simultaneously. For example, the

percentages of breast cancer screening are compared for different racial and ethnic groups after adjusting for

differences in the distributions of income, education, insurance, age, gender, and geographic location. To

account for Medicare, the analyses were done separately for people under age 65 and age 65 years and over. 

xi Multivariate analyses were conducted for the following measures for which data were available: breast cancer screening,

children who did not have patient-centered care, children who received advice about healthy eating, children who sometimes

or never got care for illness or injury as soon as wanted, children ages 3-6 who ever had a vision check, adults with a dental

visit in the past year, diabetes patients who received recommended care, adults ages 18-64 uninsured all year, adults who did

not have patient-centered care, adults with a usual primary care provider, adult smokers with advice to quit smoking, and

adults who sometimes or never got care for illness or injury as soon as wanted. 

National Healthcare 29 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Finally, to ensure that the findings were not biased by the sequence in which each factor was entered into the

analysis, 12 separate analyses were done for each of the 12 measures. Adjusted percentages are used to

quantify the magnitude of disparities after controlling for a number of confounding factors. Results of

multivariate analyses are shown for two quality measures (breast cancer screenings and recommended care

for diabetes) and two access measures (percentage uninsured and percentage with specific source of ongoing

care).

Quantifying Disparities

In the Highlights and in Chapter 4, Priority Populations, the extent of disparities across the core measures is

summarized for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, NHOPIs, AI/ANs, and poor populations. Racial, ethnic, and

socioeconomic groups are compared with a designated reference group for each core measure. Each group

could receive care that is worse than, about the same as, or better than the reference group. For each group,

the percentages of measures for which the group received worse care, similar care, or better care were

calculated. 

Health care utilization measures are difficult to interpret and were excluded when summarizing disparities in

access to care.xii In Chapter 4, Priority Populations, which presents information on each population

separately, all core measures are used when summarizing trends in disparities for each group. However, in

the Highlights, where multiple groups are presented side by side, only core measures with estimates for all

racial and ethnic groups over time are used, to facilitate comparisons across groups. An exception is made

for income comparisons of quality measures because much less information is available for income groups

than for racial and ethnic groups.

Beginning with the 2005 NHDR, rates relative to standard reference groups are used to quantify the

magnitude of disparities and to identify the largest disparities specific groups faced. For each group, the

group rate was divided by the reference group rate to calculate the relative rate for each core measure.

Relative rates of selected core measures are presented in the Highlights section of this report.

Changes to the Measure Set

The measure sets used in the 2008 NHDR and NHQR have been improved in several ways for 2009. As in

previous years, a handful of measures were modified to reflect changing standards of care or improved

information about care. Although no core measures were added, some noncore measures are being presented

in the reports for the first time in 2009.

xii Interpreting health care utilization data is more complex than analyzing data on patient perceptions of access to care. Along

with access to care, health care utilization is strongly affected by health care need and patient preferences and values. In

addition, greater use of services does not necessarily indicate better care. In fact, high use of some inpatient services may

reflect impaired access to outpatient services. For these reasons, measures of health care utilization are excluded from

summaries of access to health care.

National Healthcare 30 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Modifications to Existing Composite Measures

The changes applied to existing measures this year were for individual component measures that make up

composite measures. The changes affect the comparability of data over time to varying degrees for each

measure. Beginning in the 2007 reports, the following core composite measures of effectiveness and patient

safety underwent modifications:

u Recommended hospital care received by Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction composite.

The individual measure on use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with left

ventricular systolic dysfunction was changed to also include angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as an

acceptable alternative.

u Recommended hospital care received by Medicare patients with heart failure. The individual measure

on use of ACE inhibitors in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction was changed to also

include ARBs as an acceptable alternative.

u Recommended hospital care received by Medicare patients with pneumonia. Two component measures

underwent revision: 

• The individual measure of appropriate antibiotic selection for community-acquired pneumonia was 

changed to exclude patients with health care-associated pneumonia from the denominator

used in the calculation.

• The individual measure for the collection of samples for blood culture within 24 hours of 

hospital arrival was changed so that only those patients who were admitted to the intensive 

care unit within 24 hours of hospital arrival are included in the denominator.

u Postoperative care. The individual measure for postoperative urinary tract infection was refined to

include only patients with catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

New Noncore Measures

The Interagency Work Group identifies noncore measures to provide additional information to fill a specific

data gap in a particular topic area. Each year, the NHDR features noncore measures in special focus sections

of the report. The following new noncore measure is included in the 2009 NHDR to fill an identified gap: 

u One measure of workforce diversity from the American Community Survey: U.S. dentistry

professionals by race and ethnicity.

Measure revisions were proposed and reviewed in meetings of the Interagency Work Group for the NHDR,

which includes representation from across HHS.

National Healthcare 31 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
Databases Used in the 2009 Reports

Table 1.5 lists the databases used in the 2009 reports. 

Table 1.5. Databases used in the 2009 reports (new databases in italics)

Survey data collected from populations

• AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), 2002-2006

• CAHPS® (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Hospital Survey, 2008

• California Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 

(BRFSS), 2003-2006

• CDC-National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES), 1999-2006

• CDC-NCHS, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1998-2007

• CDC-NCHS and National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, National Immunization

Survey (NIS), 2000-2007

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS),

1998-2005

• Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and CDC-NCHS, National Survey of Children

With Special Health Care Needs, 2005-2006

• Massachusetts Health Quality Partners (MHQP), Patient Experience Survey, 2007

• National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Family Evaluation of Hospice Care (FEHC), 2005-

2008

• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), National Survey on Drug

Use and Health (NSDUH), 2002-2007

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2007 

Data collected from samples of health care facilities and providers

• American Cancer Society and American College of Surgeons, National Cancer Data Base (NCDB),

2000-2006

• CDC-NCHS, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), 1997-2007

• CDC-NCHS, National Home and Hospice Care Survey, 2007

• CDC-NCHS, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey-Emergency Department (NHAMCSED), 1997-2007

• CDC-NCHS, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey-Outpatient Department (NHAMCSOPD), 1997-2007

• CDC-NCHS, National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), 1998-2006

• CMS, End Stage Renal Disease Clinical Performance Measures Project (ESRD CPMP), 2002-2007

National Healthcare 32 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1
National Healthcare 33 Disparities Report, 2009

Introduction and Methods

Chapter 1

Table 1.5. Databases used in the 2009 reports (new databases in italics)

Data extracted from data systems of health care organizations

• AHRQ, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Databases disparities analysis

file,a

2001-2006

• CMS, Home Health Outcomes and Assessment Information Set (OASIS), 2002-2008

• CMS, Hospital Compare, 2008

• CMS, Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (MPSMS), 2003-2007

• CMS, Nursing Home Minimum Data Set (MDS), 2000-2008

• CMS, Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) program, Hospital Quality Alliance (HQA) measures,

2002-2007

• HIV Research Network (HIVRN) data, 2004-2006

• Indian Health Service, National Patient Information Reporting System (NPIRS), 2003-2006

• Indian Health Service Clinical Reporting System, National Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA) Report, 2008

• NIH, United States Renal Data System (USRDS), 2000-2005

• SAMHSA, Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2002-2005 

Data from surveillance and vital statistics systems

• CDC-National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, HIV/AIDS Reporting System,

2000-2007

• CDC-National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, TB Surveillance System, 2000-2005 

• CDC-NCHS, National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), 1999-2006

• NIH-National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, 

2000-2006 

a This file is designed to provide national estimates of disparities in the AHRQ Quality Indicators using weighted records from

a sample of hospitals from the following 25 States: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode

Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Individuals With Disabilities

The Interagency Work Group Subcommittee on Disability Statistics convened to develop a broad definition

of disabilities that can be applied across different national data sources to obtain data on the quality of care

for adults with disabilities. Beginning with the 2007 NHDR, AHRQ has used a broad, inclusive measure of

disability. This measure is intended to be consistent with statutory definitions of disability, such as the first

criterion of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. (i.e., having a physical

or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) and Federal program

definitions based on the Americans With Disabilities Act. 
Chapter 1

34 National Healthcare 

Disparities Report, 2009

For the purpose of the NHDR, people with disabilities are those with physical, sensory, and/or mental health

conditions who also have an associated decrease in functioning in such day-to-day activities as bathing,

walking, doing everyday chores, and/or engaging in work or social activities. In displaying the data on

disability, paired measures are shown to preserve the qualitative aspects of the data:

u Limitations in basic activities represent problems with mobility and other basic functioning at the

person level.

u Limitations in complex activities represent constraints encountered when people, in interaction with

their environment, attempt to participate in community life.

The use of the subcommittee’s recommendation of these paired measures of basic and complex activity

limitations is conceptually similar to the way others have divided disability. It is also consistent with the

International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health separation of activities and participation

domains. These two categories are not mutually exclusive; people may have limitations both in basic

activities and complex activities. Further information regarding the definition and methods can be found in

the Individuals With Disabilities and Special Health Care Needs section in Chapter 4, Priority Populations.

Reference

1. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2007: with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans.

Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf. Accessed on August 27, 2009.

Introduction and Methods
Chapter 2. Quality of Health Care

As better understanding of health and sickness has led to superior ways of preventing, diagnosing, and

treating diseases, the health of most Americans has improved dramatically. However, ample evidence

indicates that some Americans do not receive the full benefits of high-quality care. Specifically, a substantial

body of public health, social science, and health services research has shown extensive disparities in health

care related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors. These disparities have been confirmed in previous

releases of the National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR).

Components of Health Care Quality

Quality health care means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, for the right people—and

having the best possible results.1 Quality health care is care that is2

: 

u Effective—Providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining

from providing services to those not likely to benefit.

u Safe—Avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.

u Timely—Reducing waits and sometimes harmful delays for both those who receive and those who give

care.

u Patient centered—Providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences,

needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions.

u Equitable—Providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as

gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic factors.

u Efficient—Avoiding waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy.

Health care quality is measured in several ways, including:

u Clinical performance measures of how well providers deliver specific services needed by specific

patients, such as whether children get the immunizations they need.

u Assessments by patients of how well providers meet health care needs from the patient’s perspective,

such as whether providers communicate clearly.

u Outcome measures, such as death rates from cancers detectable by screening, that may be affected by

the quality of health care received.

How This Chapter Is Organized

This chapter presents information about disparities in the quality of health care in America, with a

presentation of a subset of core measures. The measures used here are the same as those used in the

National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR). This chapter is constructed to mirror sections in the NHQR—

effectiveness, patient safety, timeliness, and patient centeredness. Due to constraints on the length of this

report, only a subset of the core measures is presented. 

National Healthcare 35 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
The effectiveness of care section has been reorganized into seven clinical areas (cancer, diabetes, end stage

renal disease (ESRD), heart disease, HIV and AIDS, mental health and substance abuse, and respiratory

diseases) and three types of health care services that typically cut across clinical conditions (lifestyle

modification, functional status preservation and rehabilitation, and supportive and palliative care). Maternal

and child health is discussed in Chapter 4, Priority Populations, in the sections on women and children.

As in previous NHDRs, this chapter’s discussion of quality of care focuses on disparities in quality related to

race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors in the general U.S. population. Disparities in quality of care

within specific priority populations are presented in Chapter 4. This chapter also presents analyses of

changes over time by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors, as well as some stratified analyses.

Categorization of Effectiveness Measures by

Health Care Need

In the effectiveness section of this chapter, measures are organized into categories related to the patient’s

need for preventive care, treatment of acute illness, and chronic disease management. There is sizable

overlap among these categories, and some measures may be considered to belong in more than one category.

Outcome measures are organized separately, because prevention, treatment, and management can all play

important roles in affecting outcomes. 

u Prevention—Caring for healthy people is an important component of health care. Educating people

about healthy behaviors can help to postpone and avoid illness and disease. In addition, detecting

health problems at an early stage increases the chances of effectively treating them, often reducing

suffering and costs.

u Treatment—Even when preventive care is ideally implemented, it cannot entirely avert the need for

acute care. Delivering optimal treatment for acute illness can help reduce the effects of illness and

promote the best recovery possible.

u Management—Some diseases, such as diabetes and ESRD, are chronic, which means they cannot

simply be treated once; they must be managed across a lifetime. Management of chronic disease often

involves lifestyle changes and regular contact with a provider to monitor the status of the disease. For

patients, effective management of chronic disease can mean the difference between healthy living and

frequent medical problems.

u Outcomes—Many factors other than health care influence health outcomes, including a person’s genes,

lifestyle, and social and physical environment. However, for many individuals, appropriate preventive

services, timely treatment of acute illness or injury, and meticulous management of chronic disease can

positively affect mortality, morbidity, and quality of life.

Note that findings for women and children, which parallel those presented in the NHQR for maternal and

child health, are presented in the sections on women and children in Chapter 4. Effectiveness measures

presented in this section are organized within the categories of prevention, treatment, management, and

outcomes. For findings related to all core measures of effectiveness, refer to Tables 2.1a and 2.1b.

National Healthcare 36 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
Section Measure

Prevention

Cancer Breast cancer screening

Respiratory diseases Pneumococcal vaccination

Lifestyle modification Counseling smokers to quit smoking 

Lifestyle modification Counseling obese adults about healthy eating

Functional status preservation and rehabilitation Osteoporosis screening in women

Priority populations—Women (Chapter 4) Counseling obese adults about exercise

Priority populations—Children (Chapter 4) Early childhood vaccinations

Priority populations—Children (Chapter 4) Counseling about healthy eating

Priority populations—Children (Chapter 4) Dental visits

Treatment

Cancer Women with clinical Stage I-IIb breast cancer who received 

axillary node dissection or sentinel lymph node biopsy*

Cancer Women treated with breast-conserving surgery who 

received radiation therapy*

Heart disease Receipt of angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin 

receptor blocker for heart attack

Mental health and substance abuse Receipt of treatment for depression

Mental health and substance abuse Receipt of needed treatment for illicit drug use or alcohol 

problem

Respiratory diseases Receipt of recommended care for pneumonia

Management

Diabetes Receipt of three recommended diabetes services

Diabetes Short-term complications

End stage renal disease Registration for transplantation

HIV and AIDS PCP and MAC prophylaxis*

Respiratory diseases Daily asthma medication

Supportive and palliative care Use of physical restraints on nursing home residents

Supportive and palliative care Hospice care*, i

Outcomes

Cancer Advanced stage breast cancer

End stage renal disease Adequate hemodialysis

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases

Functional status preservation and rehabilitation Improvement in ambulation in home health care patients

Supportive and palliative care Pressure sores in nursing home residents

Supportive and palliative care Acute care hospitalization of home health care patients

Priority populations—Women (Chapter 4) Heart attack mortality

* Noncore measure.

i Two noncore measures of hospice care are from the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization Family Evaluation of

Hospice Care: hospice patients who were not referred to hospice care at the right time and hospice patients who did not

receive the right amount of medicine for pain.

National Healthcare 37 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
Effectiveness

Cancer

Mortality

Number of deaths (2009)..........................................................................................................................562,3403

Cause of death rank (2006) .............................................................................................................................2nd4

Prevalence

Number of living Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer (2005)...................................11,098,4505

Incidence 

New cases of cancer (2009) ..................................................................................................................1,479,3503

New cases of breast cancer (2009)...........................................................................................................192,3703

Cost

Total costii (2009 est.)......................................................................................................................$243.4 billion6

Direct costsiii (2009 est.).......................................................................................................................$99 billion6

Cost-effectivenessiv of colorectal cancer screening................................................................$0-$14,000/QALY7

Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening ............................................................$35,000-$165,000/QALY7

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening ...........................................................$14,000-$35,000/QALY7

Prevention: Breast Cancer Screening

Ensuring that all populations have access to appropriate cancer screening services is a core element of

reducing cancer health disparities.8 This year the NHDR focuses on breast cancer; findings for colorectal

cancer are found in the 2008 NHDR. Screening mammography is an effective way to significantly reduce

mortality.9

ii Total cost is composed of the cost of medical care itself (direct cost) and the economic costs of morbidity and mortality

(indirect cost).

iii Direct costs are defined as “personal health care expenditures for hospital and nursing home care, drugs, home care, and

physician and other professional services.” 

iv Cost-effectiveness is measured here by the average net cost of each quality-adjusted life year (QALY) that is saved by the

provision of a particular health intervention. QALYs are a measure of survival adjusted for its value: 1 year in perfect health

is equal to 1.0 QALY, while a year in poor health would be something less than 1.0. A lower cost per QALY saved indicates a

greater degree of cost-effectiveness. 

National Healthcare 38 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer
Figure 2.1. Women age 40 and over who report they had a mammogram within the past 2 years, by

race, ethnicity, and income, 2000-2005 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey

(NHIS), 2000, 2003, and 2005. 

Denominator: Women age 40 and over in the civilian

noninstitutionalized population.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for American Indians

and Alaska Natives in 2003 and for Native Hawaiians and Other

Pacific Islanders. The apparent decline in mammography rates

between 2003 and 2005 based on the NHIS is due at least in part

to changes in the methodology for the 2005 NHIS mammography

questions.

u In 2005, Blacks were less likely than Whites to report they had a mammogram within the past 2 years

(64.3% compared with 67.3%). 

u In 2005, Asians were less likely than Whites to report they had a mammogram within the past 2 years

(54% compared with 67.3%).

National Healthcare 39 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

25

40

55

70

85

100

White

Black

2003

2005

Percent

2000

Asian

Total

>1 Race

AI/AN

Healthy People 2010

Target: 70%

25

40

55

70

85

100

2003

2005

Percent

2000

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Healthy People 2010

Target: 70%

25

40

55

70

85

100

2003

2005

Percent

2000

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

Healthy People 2010

Target: 70%
u In 2005, mammography rates remained significantly lower for Hispanic women than for non-Hispanic

White women (58.9% compared with 68.2%).

u In 2005, the mammography rate for poor women was about two-thirds that for high-income women

(48.5% compared with 75.3%).

u In 2005, the only groups to achieve the Healthy People 2010 target of 70% of women age 40 and over

receiving a mammogram within the past 2 years were women with high income (75.3%), women with

at least some college education (72.5%, data not shown), and women with private insurance (74.2%,

data not shown).

Racial and ethnic minorities, as well as people with low incomes, have disproportionate rates of individuals

with public insurance or no insurance. To distinguish the effects of race, ethnicity, and income on cancer

screening, this measure is stratified by insurance status (Figures 2.2 and 2.3).

National Healthcare 40 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer
Figure 2.2. Women ages 40-64 who report they had a mammogram within the past 2 years, by

race/ethnicity, stratified by insurance, 2000-2005 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey

(NHIS), 2000, 2003, and 2005.

Denominator: Women age 40 and over in the civilian

noninstitutionalized population.

Note: The apparent decline in mammography rates between

2003 and 2005 based on the NHIS is due at least in part to

changes in the methodology for the 2005 NHIS mammography

questions. 

u In 2005, among those with private insurance, there was no statistically significant difference between

non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of women age 40 and over who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years (Figure 2.2).

National Healthcare 41 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

25

40

55

70

85

100

2003

2005

Percent

2000

Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Private Insurance

25

40

55

70

85

100

2003

2005

Percent

2000

Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Public Insurance

25

40

55

70

85

100

2003

2005

Percent

2000

Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Uninsurance
u In 2005, among those with private insurance, there was no statistically significant difference between

Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of women ages 40 and over who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years.

u In 2005, among those with public insurance, there was no statistically significant difference between

non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of women age 40 and over who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years.

u In 2005, among those with public insurance, there was no statistically significant difference between

Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of women age 40 and over who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years.

u Among people who were uninsured during this period, the gap between non-Hispanic Blacks and nonHispanic Whites increased. In 2005, uninsured non-Hispanic Black women age 40 and over were more

likely than uninsured non-Hispanic White women to have had a mammogram within the past 2 years

(44.2% compared with 34.4%). Also, uninsured non-Hispanic White women were least likely to have

had a mammogram within the past 2 years. 

u Among people who were uninsured during this period, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic

Whites increased. However, in 2005, there was no statistically significant difference between Hispanics

and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of women age 40 and over who had a mammogram within

the past 2 years.

National Healthcare 42 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer
Figure 2.3. Women ages 40-64 who report they had a mammogram within the past 2 years, by family

income, stratified by insurance, 2000-2005 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey

(NHIS), 2000, 2003, and 2005.

Denominator: Women age 40 and over in the civilian

noninstitutionalized population.

Note: The apparent decline in mammography rates between

2003 and 2005 based on the NHIS is due at least in part to

changes in the methodology for the 2005 NHIS mammography

questions.

National Healthcare 43 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

25

40

55

70

85

100

Percent 

2000

2003

Private Insurance

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income

2005

Poor

25

40

55

70

85

100

Percent 

2000

2003

Public Insurance

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income

2005

Poor

25

40

55

70

85

100

Percent 

2000

2003

Uninsurance

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income

2005

Poor
u From 2000 to 2005, the percentage of women age 40 and over with private insurance who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years decreased significantly (from 76.9% to 74.2%; data not shown).

In 2005, among those with private insurance, women in all other income groups were less likely than

high-income women to have had a mammogram within the past 2 years (Figure 2.3).

u During this period, the percentage of women age 40 and over with public insurance who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years decreased significantly (from 64.7% to 57.9%; data not shown).

In 2005, among those with public insurance, women in all other income groups were less likely than

high-income women to have had a mammogram within the past 2 years (56% for poor, 54.7% for near

poor, and 54.7% for middle income, compared with 80.1% for high income).

u Also during this period, the percentage of uninsured women age 40 and over who had a mammogram

within the past 2 years remained the same (data not shown). In 2005, among women uninsured all year,

poor and near-poor groups were less likely to have had a mammogram within the past 2 years than the

high-income group (32.3% for poor and 34.9% for near poor compared with 47.1% for high income).

Each year, multivariate analyses are conducted in support of the NHDR to identify the independent effects of

race and socioeconomic factors on quality of health care. Past reports have listed some of these findings as

odds ratios. This year, the NHDR presents the results of a multivariate model as adjusted percentages.

Adjusted percentages are presented for several measures, including women ages 40-64 who had a

mammogram within the past 2 years. Adjusted percentages show the expected percentage for a given

subpopulation after controlling for a number of factors, which in this case include race/ethnicity, family

income, education, health insurance status, and geographic location. For more information on adjusted

percentages, refer to the Methods section in Chapter 1.

National Healthcare 44 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer
Figure 2.4. Adjusted percentages of women ages 40-64 who had a mammogram within the past 2 years,

by race/ethnicity, family income, education, insurance status, and residence location, 2005 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Health

Statistics, National Health Interview

Survey, 2005.

Note: Adjusted percentages are

predicted marginals from a statistical

model that includes the covariates

race/ethnicity, family income, education,

health insurance, and residence location.

The adjusted percentages generated from

this model control for these multiple

factors simultaneously. Refer to Chapter

1, Introduction and Methods, for more

information. Geographic typologies are

based on Urban Influence Codes using a

methodology developed by the National

Center for Health Statistics. The

Residents of Rural Areas section in

Chapter 4 contains more information on

geographic typologies and definitions. 

u In the multivariate model used, after adjustment, 72% of non-Hispanic Black women ages 40-64 would

have had a mammogram within the past 2 years compared with 68% of non-Hispanic White women

(Figure 2.4). 

u After adjustment, a lower percentage of poor, low-income, and middle-income women ages 40-64

(58%, 61%, and 67%, respectively) would have had a mammogram within the past 2 years compared

with high-income women (75%).

u After adjustment, 45% of women ages 40-64 who were uninsured at the time of interview and 66% of

women with only public insurance would have had a mammogram within the past 2 years compared

with 73% of women who had private insurance.

u After adjustment, 64% of women ages 40-64 who were residing in noncore areas would have had a

mammogram within the past 2 years compared with 68% of women who were residing in large fringe

metropolitan areas.

National Healthcare 45 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

Public Insurance Only

Percent

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Private Insurance

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

25

40

55

70

85

100

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Uninsured

0

Z

Large Fringe Metro

Noncore
Figure 2.5. Adjusted percentages of women age 65 and over who had a mammogram within the past 2

years by race/ethnicity, family income, education, insurance status, and residence location, 2005 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Health

Statistics, National Health Interview

Survey, 2005.

Note: Adjusted percentages are

predicted marginals from a statistical

model that includes the covariates

race/ethnicity, family income, education,

health insurance, and residence location.

See Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods,

for more information.

u In the multivariate model used, after adjustment, 73% of Hispanic women age 65 and over would have

had a mammogram within the past 2 years compared with 64% of non-Hispanic White women (Figure

2.5). 

u After adjustment, 57% of poor women and 59% of low-income women would have had a mammogram

within the past 2 years compared with 70% of high-income women.

u After adjustment, 54% of women with less than a high school education and 65% of high school

graduates would have had a mammogram within the past 2 years compared with 72% of those with

some college education.

u After adjustment, 64% of women who were residing in noncore areas (micropolitan areas) would have

had a mammogram within the past 2 years compared with 63% of those who were residing in large

fringe metropolitan areas (metropolitan areas).

National Healthcare 46 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

Medicare and Public

Percent

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Medicare and Private

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

25

40

55

70

85

100

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Medicare Only

0

Z

Large Fringe Metro

Noncore
Outcome: Advanced Stage Breast Cancer

Cancers can be diagnosed at different stages. The rate of cancers that are diagnosed at advanced stages is a

measure of the effectiveness of cancer screening efforts. Differences in rates may vary across racial and

ethnic groups due to differences in underlying prevalence of breast cancer. 

Figure 2.6. Age-adjusted rate of advanced stage (stage II or higher) breast cancer per 100,000 women

age 40 and over, by race and ethnicity, 2000-2006

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 2000-2006.

Denominator: Women age 40 and over.

u From 2000 to 2006, statistically significant differences in the rate of advanced stage breast cancer were

seen between Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) and Whites, and between American Indians and

Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) and Whites (Figure 2.6). In 2006, the rate of advanced stage breast cancer

was lower for APIs and AI/ANs than for Whites (64.3 per 100,000 for APIs and 40.3 per 100,000 for

AI/ANs compared with 93.7 per 100,000 for Whites). The rate was higher for Blacks compared with

Whites (111.1 per 100,000 compared with 93.7 per 100,000).

National Healthcare 47 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

25

50

75

100

125

150 White

Black

2001

2003

Rate per 100,000

2002

API

2000

2004

2005

2006

AI/AN

25

50

75

100

125

150

2001

2003

Rate per 100,000

2000

2002

2004

2005

2006

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic
Treatment: Recommended Care for Breast Cancer Patients

Different diagnostic and treatment options exist for various types of cancer. Some aspects of cancer care are

well established as beneficial and are commonly recommended. The appropriateness of recommended care

depends on different factors, such as the stage or the extent of the cancer within the body (especially whether

the disease has spread from the original site to other parts of the body). Other types of care are important for

accurate diagnosis, such as ensuring the adequate examination of lymph nodes when surgery (e.g., to remove

breast cancer) is performed.

Among women diagnosed with breast cancer who receive surgical therapy, approximately 63% undergo

breast-conserving surgery.10 Randomized controlled trials have shown that women who undergo breastconserving surgery and postoperative radiation therapy have significantly reduced their rates of localized

disease recurrence compared with those who underwent total mastectomy and compared with those who did

not receive postoperative radiation.11-13

Figure 2.7. Women with clinical Stage I-IIb breast cancer who received axillary node dissection or

sentinel lymph node biopsy at the time of surgery (lumpectomy or mastectomy), by race and ethnicity,

2000-2006

Source: Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons and American Cancer Society, National Cancer Data Base, 

2000-2006.

Denominator: U.S. population, women.

u From 2000 to 2006, there was improvement in the percentage of women with clinical Stage I-IIb breast

cancer who received an axillary node dissection or sentinel lymph node biopsy at the time of surgery

(from 78% to 87.8%; Figure 2.7).

National Healthcare 48 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

75

80

85

90

95

100

White

Black

2003

Percent

Asian

Total

2004

2005

Z

0

2000

2001

2002

2006

75

80

85

90

95

100

Percent

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Z

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
u The percentage of women with clinical Stage I-IIb breast cancer who received an axillary node

dissection was lower for people with no insurance than for people with private insurance (90.0%

compared with 91.2%; data not shown).

u There were no statistically significant differences by race or ethnicity.

Figure 2.8. Women under age 70 treated for breast cancer with breast-conserving surgery who received

radiation therapy to the breast within 1 year of diagnosis, by race and ethnicity, 2000-2006

Source: Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons and American Cancer Society, National Cancer Data Base, 2000-

2006.

Denominator: U.S. population, women under age 70 treated for breast cancer (American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage I, II, or III

primary invasive epithelial breast cancer) with breast-conserving surgery.

u In 2006, Black patients with Stage I, II, or III breast cancer were less likely than Whites to receive

radiation therapy to the breast within 1 year of diagnosis (68.5% compared with 76.5%; Figure 2.8).

u From 2000 to 2006, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites increased. In 2006, Hispanic

patients with breast cancer were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to receive radiation therapy to the

breast within 1 year of diagnosis (61.6% compared with 77.4%).

National Healthcare 49 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Cancer

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004

Percent

2002

2003

2005

White

Black

Asian

Total

2000

2001

2006

0

Z

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Z
Diabetes

Mortality

Number of deaths (2006)............................................................................................................................72,4494

Cause of death rank (2006) ..............................................................................................................................6th4

Prevalence 

Total number of Americans with diabetes (2007)...........................................................................23.6 million14

Number of people with diagnosed diabetes (2007) ........................................................................17.9 million14

Number of people with undiagnosed diabetes (2007) ......................................................................5.7 million14

Incidence

New cases (age 20 and over, 2007)....................................................................................................1.6 million14

Cost 

Total cost (2007 est.).........................................................................................................................$174 billion15

Direct medical costs (2007 est.).......................................................................................................$116 billion15

Management: Receipt of Three Recommended Diabetes

Services

Effective management of diabetes includes hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)v testing, eye examination, and foot

examination, as well as appropriate influenza immunization and lipid management.16-18

v HbA1c is glycosylated hemoglobin and its level provides information about control of blood sugar levels.

National Healthcare 50 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Diabetes
Figure 2.9. Composite measure: Adults age 40 and over with diagnosed diabetes who received three

recommended services for diabetes (HbA1c testing, eye examination, foot examination) in the calendar

year, by race, ethnicity, family income, and education, 2002-2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 40 and over.

National Healthcare 51 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Diabetes

25

35

45

55

65

75

2004

Percent

2002

2003

2005

2006

0

Z

Black

White

25

35

45

55

65

75

2004

Percent

2002

2003

2005

2006

0

Z

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

25

35

45

55

65

75

2004

Percent

2002

2003

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2005

2006

0

Z

25

35

45

55

65

75

2004

Percent

2002

2003

2005

2006

0

Z

<High School

High School Grad

At Least

Some College
Note: Recommended services for diabetes are: (1) HbA1c testing, (2) dilated eye examination, and (3) foot examination. Data include

people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Rate is age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. Data were insufficient for

this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives.

u In 2006, there were no statistically significant differences between Blacks and Whites for adults age 40

and over with diagnosed diabetes who received three recommended services for diabetes in the calendar

year (36.6% compared with 42.2%; Figure 2.9).

u In 2006, the percentage was significantly lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (31.6%

compared with 44.6%).

u In 2006, the percentage was also significantly lower for poor (33.4%), near-poor (31.9%), and middleincome people (42.7%) than for high-income people (47.8%).

u In 2006, the percentage of adults age 40 and over with diabetes who received three recommended

services was lower for people with less than a high school education (31.4%) and high school graduates

(42.9%) than for people with at least some college education (46.4%).

As noted above, multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the independent effects of race and

socioeconomic factors on several measures. Adjusted percentages are shown for receipt of diabetes services

after controlling for race/ethnicity, family income, education, health insurance status, and location.

Figure 2.10. Composite measure: Adjusted percentages of adults ages 40-64 with diagnosed diabetes

who received three recommended services for diabetes in the calendar year, by race/ethnicity, family

income, education, insurance status, and residence location, 2002-2006 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey,

pooled 2002-2006 fiscal year files.

Note: Adjusted percentages are predicted

marginals from a statistical model that includes

the covariates race/ethnicity, family income,

education, health insurance, and residence

location. Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods,

provides more information.

National Healthcare 52 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Diabetes

Public Insurance Only

Percent

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Private Insurance

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

25

35

45

55

65

75

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

Uninsured

0

Z

Nonmetropolitan

Metropolitan
u In the multivariate model used, after adjustment, among adults ages 40-64 with diagnosed diabetes, 35%

of poor adults, 33% of low-income adults, and 39% of middle-income adults would have received the

three recommended services for diabetes in the calendar year compared with 50% of high-income adults.

u After adjustment, only 38% of adults with diabetes with less than a high school education would have

received the three recommended services for diabetes compared with 45% of those with some college

education.

u After adjustment, only 31% of adults with diabetes who were uninsured all year would have received all

three recommended services for diabetes compared with 44% of those who had any private insurance.

u After adjustment, 39% of adults with diabetes who were living in nonmetropolitan areas would have

received all three recommended services for diabetes compared with 43% of those who were living in

metropolitan areas.

National Healthcare 53 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Diabetes
Outcome: Short-Term Complications 

Short-term complications can occur for patients with diabetes when their condition is not managed properly.

Very high or very low blood sugar levels or too little insulin can be fatal if untreated and requires emergency care.

Figure 2.11. Hospital admissions for diabetes with short-term complications per 100,000 population,

age 18 and over, by race/ethnicity and income, 2001-2006 

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient Databases (SID)

disparities analysis file, 2001-2006.

Note: Short-term complications include ketoacidosis, hyperosmolarity, or coma and exclude obstetric admissions and transfers from

other institutions. White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Data were not available for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Data

are adjusted for age, gender, and diagnosis-related group clusters. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is designed to provide

national estimates using weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the U.S. resident population.

u In 2006, the rate of hospital admissions for short-term complications was more than three times as high

for Blacks as for Whites (151.2 per 100,000 population compared with 46.8 per 100,000 population).

u The rate of hospital admissions for short-term complications was higher for Hispanics than for Whites

(53.6 per 100,000 population compared with 46.8 per 100,000 population).

u The rate of hospital admissions for short-term complications was almost three times as high for people

living in communities with median household incomes of less than $25,000 as it was for people living

in communities with median household incomes of $45,000 or more (90.1 per 100,000 population

compared with 33.3 per 100,000 population).

National Healthcare 54 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Diabetes

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 White

Black

2001

2003

Rate per 100,000

2002

API

2004

2005

2006

Total Hispanic

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 $25,000-34,999

$35,000-44,999

2001

2003

Rate per 100,000

2002

$45,000+

2004

2005

2006

<$25,000
End Stage Renal Disease

Mortality

Total ESRD deaths (2006)........................................................................................................................87,65419

Prevalence

Total cases (2006)....................................................................................................................................506,25620

Incidence

New cases (2006)....................................................................................................................................110,85420

Cost

Total Medicare program expenditure for ESRD (2006 est.) .........................................................$20.0 billion21

National Healthcare 55 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 End Stage Renal Disease
Outcome: Adequate Hemodialysis

Dialysis removes harmful waste and excess fluid buildup in the blood that occurs when kidneys fail to

function. Hemodialysis is the most common method used to treat advanced and permanent kidney failure.

The adequacy of dialysis is measured by the percentage of hemodialysis patients with a urea reduction ratio

equal to or greater than 65%; this measure indicates how well urea, a waste product, is eliminated by the

dialysis machine.

Figure 2.12. Adult hemodialysis patients with adequate dialysis (urea reduction ratio 65% or greater), by

race and ethnicity, 2002-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Clinical Performance Measures Project, 2002-

2007.

Denominator: ESRD hemodialysis patients age 18 and over.

Note: Data were not available for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders for any data years. Data were not available for

multiple race for 2006 and 2007.

u In 2007, Blacks were less likely than Whites to have adequate dialysis (87.9% compared with 89.3%;

Figure 2.12).

u In 2007, the percentage with adequate dialysis continued to be higher for Asians than for Whites (96.3%

compared with 89.3%). Furthermore, the percentage of Asians with adequate dialysis remained

significantly higher than the percentage of Whites from 2002 through 2007.

National Healthcare 56 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 End Stage Renal Disease

75

80

85

90

95

100 White Black

2006

2007

Percent

2002

Asian

AI/AN

2003

2004

2005

0

Z

>1 Race

75

80

85

90

95

100

Percent 

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

0

Z
u From 2002 to 2007, the percentage of Hispanics with adequate dialysis increased (from 89% to 92.1%).

Hispanics continued to have a higher percentage with adequate dialysis than non-Hispanic Whites

(92.1% for Hispanics compared with 88.6% for non-Hispanic Whites).

u In 2007, women were more likely than men to have adequate dialysis (93.4% compared with 85.5%;

data not shown).

Management: Registration for Transplantation

Kidney transplantation often allows people with ESRD to continue a lifestyle similar to what they had before

their kidney failure.22 It is important for people with ESRD to be registered on the waiting list for kidney

transplantation to increase the likelihood of transplantation. However, the number of people on the waiting

list greatly exceeds the number who receive transplants. Thus, being on the waiting list does not ensure a

transplant.23 In 2006, 70,778 patients were on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)

deceased donor kidney transplant waiting list in the United States. Only 10,212 deceased donor kidney

transplants were performed.19

National Healthcare 57 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 End Stage Renal Disease
Figure 2.13. Dialysis patients under age 70 who were registered on a waiting list for transplantation, by

race and ethnicity, 2000-2005 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: U.S. Renal Data System, 2000-2005.

Denominator: ESRD hemodialysis patients and peritoneal dialysis patients under age 70.

Note: Data were not available for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.

u In 2005, Black dialysis patients continued to be less likely to be registered for transplantation than

Whites (12.3% compared with 17.7%; Figure 2.13).

u In 2005, AI/ANs continued to be less likely to be registered for transplantation than Whites (11.6%

compared with 17.7%).

u In 2005, this percentage was higher for Asians than for Whites (26.7% compared with 17.7%).

u The gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites decreased. However, in 2005, the percentage was

still lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (15.3% compared with 18.5%).

u From 2000 to 2005, only Asians achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 25%.

National Healthcare 58 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 End Stage Renal Disease

0

10

20

30

40

50 White Black

2000

2001

Percent

2002

Asian AI/AN

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People

2010 Target: 25%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2000

2001

Percent

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People

2010 Target: 25%

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White
Heart Disease

Mortality

Number of deaths (2006)..........................................................................................................................631,6364

Cause of death rank (2006)...............................................................................................................................1st4

Prevalence

Number of cases of coronary heart disease (2006).........................................................................16.8 million24

Number of cases of heart failure (2006)............................................................................................5.7 million24

Number of cases of high blood pressure (2006) .............................................................................73.6 million24

Incidence 

Number of new cases of heart failure (2004).........................................................................................550,00025

Cost 

Total cost of cardiovascular disease (2009 est.).............................................................................$474.8 billion6

Total cost of heart failure (2009 est.)..............................................................................................$37.2 billion24

Direct costs of cardiovascular disease (2009 est.).........................................................................$313.3 billion6

Cost-effectiveness of hypertension screening...............................................................$14,000-$35,000/QALY7

Cost-effectiveness of aspirin prophylaxis................................................................................Net cost savings7, vi

Treatment: Receipt of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 

Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Heart Attack

One aspect of recommended hospital care for heart attack includes receipt of an angiotensin-converting

enzyme (ACE) inhibitor for left ventricular systolic dysfunction. In 2005, the ACE inhibitor measure was

modified to include receipt of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as an alternative to ACE inhibitors.

vi Unlike other interventions that often involve greater costs for health benefits, this intervention actually results in net cost

savings to society.

National Healthcare 59 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Heart Disease
Figure 2.14. Hospital patients with heart attack and left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received

angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker treatment (all payers), by

race/ethnicity, 2005-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2005-2007.

Denominator: Patients hospitalized for heart attack with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, all ages.

Note: Whites, Blacks, AI/ANs, and Asians are non-Hispanic groups. 

u In 2007, there were no statistically significant differences between racial groups in the percentage of

hospital patients with heart attack and left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received ACE inhibitor

or ARB treatment (Figure 2.14).

u During the same period, the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites remained

statistically significant. In 2007, the percentage was significantly lower for Hispanics compared with

non-Hispanic Whites (89.2% compared with 91.4%).

National Healthcare 60 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Heart Disease

75

80

85

90

95

100

White

Black

2006

2007

Percent

Asian

AI/AN

2005

0

Z

Hispanic

Total
HIV and AIDS

Mortality

Number of deaths of people with AIDS (2007) .......................................................................................14,56126

Prevalence

Number of people living with HIV infection (not including AIDS; 2007)...........................................263,93626

Number of people living with AIDS (2007)...........................................................................................468,57826

Incidence

Number of new HIV infections (2007).....................................................................................................56,30027

Number of new AIDS cases (2007)..........................................................................................................37,04126

Cost

Federal spending on domestic HIV/AIDS care, cash and housing assistance, 

and prevention and research (fiscal year 2009 est.)........................................................................$19.4 billion28

The impact of HIV infection and its late-stage manifestation, AIDS, is disproportionately higher for racial

and ethnic minorities and people of lower income and education levels. Although access to care has

improved, research shows that Blacks, Hispanics, women, and uninsured people with HIV remain less likely

to have access to care and less likely to have optimal patterns of care.29

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV and AIDS disproportionately affect

African Americans in the United States. The spread of HIV is linked to complex social and economic

factors, including poverty, concentration of the virus in specific geographic areas and smaller sexual

networks, sexually transmitted disease comorbidities, stigma (negative attitudes, beliefs, and actions directed

at people living with HIV/AIDS or directed at people who engage in behaviors that might put them at risk

for HIV), and injection and noninjection drug use and associated behaviors.30

The HIV/AIDS epidemic is also a serious threat to the Hispanic community. Hispanics accounted for 15%

of the population but had an estimated 17% of the new HIV infections in 2006, which was 21⁄2 times the rate

of Whites.31 In addition to being seriously affected by HIV, Hispanics continue to face challenges in

accessing health care, preventive services, and HIV treatment. Undocumented Hispanics face an even

greater challenge in accessing care and information regarding HIV and AIDS, but data are limited on HIV

infection rates of undocumented immigrants.32 In 2006, HIV/AIDS was the fourth leading cause of death

among Hispanic men and women ages 35-44.33 Having Medicaid and a usual source of care decreased the

likelihood of delaying care for HIV, but research shows that delay in care is still greater for Hispanics and

African Americans.34 

National Healthcare 61 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 HIV and AIDS
Outcome: New AIDS Cases

Early and appropriate treatment of HIV infection can delay progression to AIDS, so improved management

of chronic HIV infection has likely contributed to declines in new AIDS cases. For example, as the use of

highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) to treat HIV infection became widespread in the mid-1990s,

rates of new AIDS cases declined.26, 35 

Figure 2.15. New AIDS cases per 100,000 population age 13 and over, by race/ethnicity, 2000-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native;

API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB

Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance System, 2000-

2007.

Denominator: U.S. population age 13 and over.

Note: The source categorizes race/ethnicity as 

a single item. White = non-Hispanic White;

Black = non-Hispanic Black. Data are based on

hospital self-reports. 

u In 2007, the overall rate of new AIDS cases decreased to 14.4 cases per 100,000 population (Figure

2.15).

u From 2000 to 2007, the rate of new AIDS cases decreased for Blacks (from 73.0 to 59.2 per 100,000),

Hispanics (from 26.4 to 20.4 per 100,000), and Whites (from 7.0 to 6.1 per 100,000).

u During this period, the gap between Blacks and Whites decreased. However, in 2007, the rate of new

AIDS cases was still almost 10 times as high for Blacks as for Whites (59.2 per 100,000 compared with

6.1 per 100,000).

u From 2000 to 2007, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites also decreased. However, in

2007, the rate of new AIDS cases was still more than three times as high for Hispanics as for Whites

(20.4 per 100,000 compared with 6.1 per 100,000).

u In 2007, the rate of new AIDS cases was almost three times as high for men as for women (21.6 per

100,000 compared with 7.5 per 100,000; data not shown).

u No group has reached the Healthy People 2010 target of 1 new AIDS case per 100,000 population.

National Healthcare 62 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 HIV and AIDS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

White

Black

2006

2007

New cases per 100,000 population

API

AI/AN

2005

Hispanic

Total

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Healthy People 2010

Target: 1.0
Management: PCP and MAC Prophylaxis

Management of chronic HIV disease includes outpatient and inpatient services. Because national data on HIV

care are not routinely collected,vii HIV measures tracked in the NHDR come from the HIV Research Network.

Data from the HIV Research Network are not nationally representative of the level of care received by all

Americans living with HIV. Participation in this network is voluntary. Network data represent only patients

who are actually receiving care, about 14,000 HIV patients per year. Network data do not include patients

who do not receive care. Furthermore, data shown below are not representative of the HIV Research Network

as a whole because they represent only a subset of network sites that have the best data. This network consists

of 18 medical practices across the United States that treat large numbers of HIV patients.

Without adequate treatment, as HIV disease progresses, CD4 cell counts fall and patients become

increasingly susceptible to opportunistic infections. When CD4 cell counts fall below 200, oral medicine to

prevent development of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is routinely recommended; when CD4 cell counts

fall below 50, medicine to prevent development of disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC)

infection is routinely recommended.36

Figure 2.16. Adult patients with HIV and CD4 count <200 who received PCP prophylaxis in the calendar

year, by race/ethnicity, 2004-2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HIV

Research Network, 2004-2006.

Denominator: Adult patients with HIV and CD4 cell counts below

200 receiving care from an HIV Research Network medical practice.

Note: Whites and Blacks are non-Hispanic populations. Data were

not available for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives.

u From 2004 to 2006, the overall percentage of HIV patients with CD4 cell count <200 who received

PCP prophylaxis increased. There were no statistically significant differences between any racial or

ethnic group and non-Hispanic Whites (Figure 2.16).

vii Although program data are collected from all Ryan White CARE Act HIV/AIDS Program grantees, the aggregate nature of

the data makes it difficult to assess the quality of care provided by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.

National Healthcare 63 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 HIV and AIDS

75

80

85

90

95

100

White

Black

2005

2006

Percent

2004

0

Z

Hispanic

Total
u During this period, the difference between men and women stopped being statistically significant for

HIV patients with CD4 cell count <200 who received PCP prophylaxis. In 2006, women were as likely

to receive PCP prophylaxis treatment as men (data not shown).

Figure 2.17. Adult patients with HIV and CD4 count <50 who received MAC prophylaxis in the past year,

by race/ethnicity, 2004-2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HIV

Research Network, 2004-2006.

Denominator: Adult patients with HIV and CD4 cell counts

below 50 receiving care from an HIV Research Network medical

practice.

Note: Whites and Blacks are non-Hispanic populations. Data

were not available for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives.

u From 2004 to 2006, the overall percentage of HIV patients with CD4 cell count <50 who received

MAC prophylaxis increased (Figure 2.17).

u In 2006, there was no statistically significant difference between Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites in the

percentage of HIV patients with CD4 cell count <50 who received MAC prophylaxis.

u During this period, the percentage of Hispanic HIV patients with CD4 cell count <50 who received

MAC prophylaxis surpassed that of non-Hispanic Whites. In 2006, the percentage of HIV patients with

CD4 cell count <50 who received MAC prophylaxis was higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic

Whites (91.5% compared with 82.8%). Hispanics had the highest rate of MAC prophylaxis treatment

during this period.

National Healthcare 64 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 HIV and AIDS

75

80

85

90

95

100

White

Black

2005

2006

Percent

2004

0

Z

Hispanic

Total
Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Mortality

Rank among causes of death in the United States - suicide (2006).............................................................11th4

Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (2007)...............................................................................................12,99837

Prevalence

People age 12 and over with alcohol and/or illicit drug dependence or abuse 

in the past year (2007)..........................................................................................................22.3 million (9.0%)38

Adults age 18 and over with serious psychological distress in the past 

year (2007)..........................................................................................................................24.3 million (10.9%)38

Youths ages 12-17 with a major depressive episode during the 

past year (2007)......................................................................................................................2.0 million (8.2%)38

Adults age 18 and over with a major depressive episode during the 

past year (2007)....................................................................................................................16.5 million (7.5%)38

Adults with at least one major depressive episode in their lifetime (2006)....................30.4 million (13.9%)39

Cost

Total medical expenditures for substance abuse and mental disorders (2003 est.).......................$121 billion40

Cost-effectiveness of screening and brief counseling for problem drinking........................$0-$14,000/QALY7

In 2004, almost one-fourth of all stays in U.S. community hospitals for patients age 18 and over—7.6 million

of nearly 32 million stays—involved mental disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia,

and substance use-related disorders.41 The 12-month prevalence of anxiety disorders in the United States in

2001-2003 was 19.1%; mood disorders, 9.7%; impulse control disorder, 10.5%; and any substance disorder

(including drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and nicotine dependenceviii), 13.4%.42

Social and cultural factors may dramatically affect mental health. Culturally and linguistically appropriate

services can decrease the prevalence, incidence, severity, and duration of certain mental disorders. However,

many factors adversely affect the mental health of racial and ethnic groups, such as discriminationix and

racism. Some factors also present significant barriers to treatment. These include cost of care, lack of

sufficient insurance for mental health services, social stigma, fragmented organization of services,43 and

mistrust.

viii Nicotine dependence is a physical addiction to nicotine when delivered by various tobacco products.

ix The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) is the sole HHS agency with the authority to enforce Title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in

programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, including most health care providers and human service

agencies. Individuals and advocacy groups may file complaints with OCR to remedy such discrimination.

National Healthcare 65 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Mental Health and Substance Abuse 
In addition, economic factors can have a significant effect on mental health. For example, poverty can be a

risk factor for poor mental health and a result of poor mental health. But low-income individuals may be

more likely to receive needed substance abuse treatment due to linkages in service delivery between

substance abuse and public assistance services in many States.

In rural and remote areas, many people with mental illnesses have less adequate access to care, more limited

availability of skilled care providers, lower family incomes, and greater societal stigma for seeking mental

health treatment than their urban counterparts. In addition, rural Americans are less likely to have private

health insurance benefits for mental health care. Lack of coverage often occurs because small employers and

individual purchasers dominate the rural health insurance marketplace. Therefore, insurance policies are

more likely to have limited or no mental health coverage. 

For racial and ethnic populations in rural areas, these problems are compounded by the lack of culturally and

linguistically competent providers. Finally, of the 1,669 federally designated mental health professional

shortage areas, more than 85% are rural areas.44 As of September 2009, the number of federally designated

mental health professional shortage areas had increased to an estimated 3,291.45

Treatment: Receipt of Treatment for Depression

Treatment for depression is an effective way to reduce the chances of future major depressive episodes. 

Figure 2.18. Adults with a major depressive episode in the last 12 months who received treatment for

depression in the last 12 months, by race, ethnicity, income, education, and gender, 2007

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, National Survey on Drug

Use and Health, 2007.

Denominator: U.S. population age 18 and over

who had a major depressive episode in the last 12

months.

Note: Major depressive episode is defined as a

period of at least 2 weeks when a person

experienced a depressed mood or loss of interest or

pleasure in daily activities and had a majority of the

symptoms of depression described in the fourth

edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Treatment for

depression is defined as seeing or talking to a

medical doctor or other professional or using

prescription medication in the past year for

depression. Data were insufficient for this analysis

for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific

Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives.

National Healthcare 66 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

White

Percent

Black

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Total

<High School 

High School Grad

 At Least Some College

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Hispanic

Male

Female
u The percentage of adults with a major depressive episode in the last 12 months who received any

treatment for depression in the last 12 months was significantly lower for Blacks than for Whites

(52.6% compared with 66.8%) and lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (53.9% compared

with 68.5%; Figure 2.18).

u In 2007, adult females with a major depressive episode were more likely than their male counterparts to

have any treatment for depression in the last 12 months (68.0% compared with 57.8%).

u There were no statistically significant differences by income level or education level for this measure.

Treatment: Receipt of Needed Treatment for Illicit Drug

Use or Alcohol Problem

Illicit drugx use is a medical problem that can have a direct toxic effect on a number of bodily organs. Illicit

drug use also can exacerbate numerous health and mental health conditions. Alcohol problems can lead to

serious health risks. Heavy drinking can increase the risk of certain cancers and cause damage to the liver,

brain, and other organs.46 It also can cause birth defects. Alcoholism increases the risk of death from car

crashes and other injuries.47 Treatment for illicit drug use or an alcohol problem at a specialty facility is an

effective way to reduce the chances of future illicit drug use or alcohol problems.

x Illicit drugs included in this measure are marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants (e.g., inhalation of various

substances other than for intended use – like toluene), hallucinogens, heroin, and prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs

(nonmedical use).

National Healthcare 67 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Mental Health and Substance Abuse 
Figure 2.19. People age 12 and over who needed treatment for illicit drug use or an alcohol problem and

who received such treatment at a specialty facility in the last 12 months, by race and ethnicity, 2003-2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007.

Denominator: U.S. population age 12 and over who needed treatment for illicit drug use or an alcohol problem in the last 12 months.

Note: “Received illicit drug treatment at a specialty facility” refers to treatment received at a hospital (inpatient), rehabilitation facility

(inpatient or outpatient), or mental health center to reduce or stop the nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs or

for medical problems associated with drug use. Respondents were classified as needing treatment for an illicit drug problem if they

met at least one of these three criteria during the last 12 months: (1) dependence on any illicit drug; (2) abuse of any illicit drug; or (3)

treatment for an illicit drug problem at a specialty facility (drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities [inpatient or outpatient], hospitals

[inpatient only], and mental health centers). The 2004 and 2007 data for Asians and Pacific Islanders and American Indians and

Alaska Natives were insufficient for this analysis.

u In 2007, the percentage of people age 12 and over who needed treatment for illicit drug use or an

alcohol problem and received it at a specialty facility in the last 12 months continued to be significantly

higher for Blacks than for Whites (18.1% compared with 9.3%; Figure 2.19). 

u In 2007, the percentage of people age 12 and over who needed treatment for illicit drug use or an

alcohol problem and received it at a specialty facility in the last 12 months was lower for Hispanics

than for non-Hispanic Whites (6.0% compared with 9.9%). 

National Healthcare 68 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005

Percent

2003

White

Black

2004

Total AI/AN

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 16%

API

2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005

Percent

2003

2004

2006

2007

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Healthy People 2010

Target: 16%
Respiratory Diseases

Mortality

Number of deaths from chronic lower respiratory diseasesxi (2006)......................................................124,5834

Cause of death rank for chronic lower respiratory diseases (2006)................................................................4th4

Prevalence

Adults age 18 and over with current asthma (2007) .......................................................................16.2 million48

Children under age 18 with current asthma (2007)...........................................................................6.7 million49

People under age 18 with an asthma attack in last 12 months (2007)..............................................3.8 million*

Annual number of cases of the common cold .....................................................................................>1 billion50

Number of discharges attributable to pneumonia (2007)................................................................1.17 million51

Cost

Total cost of lung diseases (2009 est.)............................................................................................$177.4 billion6

Direct medical costs of lung diseases (2009 est.)..........................................................................$113.6 billion6

Total cost of upper respiratory infections (annual est.) .....................................................................$40 billion52

Total cost of asthma (2007 est.).......................................................................................................$19.7 billion53

Direct medical costs of asthma (2007 est.).....................................................................................$14.7 billion53

Cost-effectiveness of influenza immunization .......................................................................$0-$14,000/QALY7

Prevention: Pneumococcal Vaccination

Vaccination is an effective strategy for reducing illness, death, and disparities associated with pneumococcal

disease and influenza.54, 55

xi Chronic lower respiratory diseases include emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

* For information on trends in asthma attacks among children, refer to Akinbami LJ, Moorman JE, Garbe PL, et al. Status of

childhood asthma in the United States, 1980-2007. Pediatrics 2009;123:S131-S145.

National Healthcare 69 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases
Figure 2.20. Adults age 65 and over who ever received pneumococcal vaccination, by race, ethnicity,

and income, 2000-2007 

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey,

2000-2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 65 and

over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders (NHOPIs) and for American Indians

and Alaska Natives.

u From 2000 to 2007, the overall percentage of adults age 65 and over who ever received pneumococcal

vaccination improved from 53.4% to 57.8% (data not shown). Improvements were observed for all

groups except for Asians, which decreased from 42.2% to 34.5% (Figure 2.20).

National Healthcare 70 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005

Percent

2003

White

Black

2004

Asian

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 90%

2000

2001

2002

2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005

Percent

2003

2004

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 90%

2000

2001

2002

2007

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005

Percent

2003

2004

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 90%

2000

2001

2002

2007

Poor

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income
u In 2007, the percentage of adults age 65 and over who ever had pneumococcal vaccination was

significantly lower for Blacks than for Whites (44.4% compared with 60.0%). For Asians, the

percentage of adults age 65 and over who ever had pneumococcal vaccination was significantly lower,

at almost half the percentage for Whites (34.5% compared with 60.0% for Whites).

u In 2007, the percentage of Hispanic adults age 65 and over who ever had pneumococcal vaccination

continued to be significantly lower, at about half that of non-Hispanic Whites (32.4% compared with

62.1%).

u In 2007, the percentage was significantly lower for poor older adults than for high-income older adults

(48.6% compared with 61.0%).

u In 2007, none of the groups achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 90% of adults age 65 and over

having received pneumococcal vaccination.

Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately of lower income and education. To distinguish the effects

of race, ethnicity, income, and education on pneumococcal vaccination, this measure is stratified by income

and education level.

Figure 2.21. Adults age 65 and over who ever received pneumococcal vaccination, by race and

ethnicity, stratified by income, 2007

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 65 and over.

Note: Age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and

Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives.

National Healthcare 71 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

White 

Black 

Poor Near

Poor

Middle

Income

High

Income

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

Poor Near

Poor

Middle

Income

High

Income
u At all income levels, Blacks were less likely than Whites to ever have had a pneumococcal vaccination

(Figure 2.21).

u At all income levels, Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to ever have had a

pneumococcal vaccination. Among poor and middle-income older adults, Hispanics were both less

than half as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to receive this preventive care.

Figure 2.22. Adults age 65 and over who ever received pneumococcal vaccination, by race and

ethnicity, stratified by education, 2007

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 65 and over.

Note: Age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population. Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and

Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives.

u With the exception of Blacks with at least some college education, Blacks and Hispanics at all

education levels were significantly less likely than Whites to ever have had a pneumococcal vaccination

(Figure 2.22).

National Healthcare 72 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

White 

Black 

<High

School

High

School Grad

At Least Some 

College

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

High School

Grad

<High 

School

At Least Some 

College
Treatment: Receipt of Recommended Care for Pneumonia

Older adults are at high risk for pneumonia. The highest rate of hospitalizations for pneumonia occurs in the

population age 65 and over—220.4 per 10,000 population for this group in 2004, compared with 45.5 per

10,000 for the overall population.56 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) tracks a set of

measures for quality of pneumonia care for hospitalized patients from the CMS Quality Improvement

Organization (QIO) Program. This set of measures has been adopted by the Hospital Quality Alliance

(HQA). The NHDR shows a composite measure of recommended hospital care that includes five separate

measures (listed in the note for Figure 2.23). For further details on composite measures, refer to Chapter 1,

Introduction and Methods.

Figure 2.23. Composite measure: Medicare hospital patients with pneumonia who received

recommended hospital care, by race/ethnicity, 2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Quality

Improvement Organization Program, 2007.

Denominator: Patients with pneumonia who are

hospitalized, all ages.

Note: In 2007, the measure of initial antibiotic dose changed

from within 4 hours to within 6 hours of hospital arrival.

Whites, Blacks, Asians, and AI/ANs are non-Hispanic groups.

Composite includes the following five measures: (1) receipt

of antibiotics within 6 hours, (2) receipt of appropriate

antibiotics, (3) receipt of blood culture before antibiotics, (4)

receipt of influenza screening (i.e., person is assessed as to

whether he or she would be a good candidate for

vaccination) or vaccination, and (5) receipt of pneumococcal

screening or vaccination. Composite is calculated by

averaging the percentage of opportunities for care in which

the patient received all five incorporated components of care.

For further details on composite measures, refer to Chapter

1, Introduction and Methods. The denominator used to

calculate these measures was refined in 2005 to exclude

patients with health care-associated pneumonia. The

percentage of Medicare beneficiaries with blood cultures

within 24 hours of hospital arrival was changed to include in

the denominator only patients who were admitted to the

intensive care unit within 24 hours of hospital arrival.

u In 2007, the percentage of patients with pneumonia who received recommended hospital care was

significantly lower for Blacks (81.5%), Asians (81.6%), American Indians and Alaska Natives (80.9%),

and Hispanics (79.6%) compared with Whites (85.9%). 

National Healthcare 73 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases

White

Percent

Black

Hispanic

Total

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Asian

AI/AN
Management: Daily Asthma Medication

Improving quality of care for people with asthma can reduce the occurrence of asthma attacks and avoidable

hospitalizations. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program, coordinated by the National

Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, develops and disseminates science-based guidelines for the diagnosis and

management of asthma.57 These recommendations are built around four essential components of asthma

management critical for effective long-term control of asthma: assessment and monitoring, control of factors

contributing to symptom exacerbation, pharmacotherapy, and education for partnership in care.58

Daily long-term controller medication is necessary to prevent exacerbations and chronic symptoms for all

patients with persistent asthma. Appropriate controller medications for people with mild persistent asthma59, xii

include inhaled corticosteroids, cromolyn, nedocromil, theophylline, and leukotriene modifiers.60

Figure 2.24. People with current asthma who are now taking preventive medicine daily or almost daily

(either oral or inhaler), by race, ethnicity, income, and education, 2003-2006 

xii“Mild persistent asthma” refers to cases in which people experience asthma symptoms more than 2 days per week and more

than 2 nights per month, as well as other clinical indicators.

National Healthcare 74 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005

Percent

2003

White Black

2004

2006

Total

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005

Percent

2003

2004

2006

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2003-2006.

Denominator: Noninstitutionalized population with asthma, as defined below.

Note: People with current asthma are defined as people who report they either still have asthma or had an episode or attack in the

last 12 months. Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians

and Alaska Natives. 

u From 2003 to 2006, there were no statistically significant changes over time for any group in the

percentage of people with current asthma who are taking daily preventive medicine, except for nonHispanic Whites, whose rates improved (Figure 2.24).

u From 2003 to 2006, the gap between Blacks and Whites increased. In 2006, Blacks with current

asthma were less likely than Whites with current asthma to take daily preventive medicine (24.6%

compared with 33.6%).

u From 2003 to 2006, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites increased. In 2006, Hispanics

with current asthma were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites with current asthma to take daily

preventive medicine (23.2% compared with 35.1%).

u From 2003 to 2006, there were no statistically significant changes overall by income or education in the

percentage of people with current asthma who took daily preventive medicine.

u From 2003 to 2006, the gap between high-income people and people at other income levels closed.

The differences in the percentage of people with current asthma taking daily preventive medicine are no

longer statistically significant.

u From 2003 to 2006, the gap between people with less than a high school education and those with at

least some college education closed. There were no statistically significant differences by education in

2006.

National Healthcare 75 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Respiratory Diseases

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent

Poor

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2004

Percent 

2005

<High School

High School Grad

At Least

Some College

2003

2006
Lifestyle Modification

Mortality

Number of deaths per year attributable to smoking (2000-2004).........................................................443,00061

Prevalence

Number of adult current cigarette smokers (2007).........................................................................43.4 million62

Number of obese adults (2005-2006) ..............................................................................................≥72 million63

Number of adults with no leisure-time physical activity (2007)....................................................84.8 million64

Cost

Total cost of smoking (2000-2004 est.)...........................................................................................$193 billion61

Total health care cost related to obesity (2008 est.)........................................................................$147 billion65

Unhealthy behaviors place many Americans at risk for a variety of diseases. Helping patients choose and

maintain healthy lifestyles is a critical role of health care. The NHDR tracks two measures related to healthy

lifestyles, counseling about quitting smoking and counseling about healthy eating.

Prevention: Counseling Smokers To Quit Smoking

Smoking adversely affects health in a variety of ways and has been linked to cancer, heart disease and stroke,

and respiratory diseases. Approximately 135,000 (23%) heart disease deaths in the United States for both

men and women are related to smoking.66 Cigarette smoking increases the risk of dying from coronary heart

disease (CHD) two- to threefold.66 The risk of dying from lung cancer is more than 22 times as high among

men who smoke cigarettes, and the risk for a number of other cancers is also significantly increased. 

Rates of cancers related to cigarette smoking vary widely among members of racial and ethnic groups but are

highest among American Indian and Alaska Native adults and lowest among Asian adults.62 In addition,

90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are attributable to cigarette smoking.

Smoking is associated with a 10-fold increase in the risk of developing COPD.

Smoking is a modifiable risk factor, and health care providers can encourage patients to quit smoking.

Current evidence suggests that patients who received even brief advice from a physician to quit smoking

were more likely to quit smoking than those who received no advice.67 Among other benefits of quitting, the

risk of developing CHD attributed to smoking can be decreased by 50% after one year of cessation. That is

notable given the effect that CHD can have on health.68

National Healthcare 76 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Lifestyle Modification
Figure 2.25. Adult current smokers under age 65 with a checkup in the last 12 months who received

advice from a doctor to quit smoking, by race/ethnicity, income, and education, 2006 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adult current

smokers under age 65 who had a checkup in the last 12

months.

u In 2006, 64.4% of adult current smokers under age 65 with a checkup in the last 12 months received

advice to quit smoking (Figure 2.25). 

u From 2002 to 2006, rates of advice to quit smoking did not change overall or for any racial or ethnic

group (data not shown).

u In 2006, Hispanic adults were less likely to receive advice to quit smoking compared with non-Hispanic

White adults (53.4% compared with 64.9%).

Prevention: Counseling Obese Adults About Healthy Eating

Physician-based exercise and diet counseling is an important component of effective weight loss

interventions,69 and it has been shown to produce increased levels of physical activity among sedentary

patients.70 Not every obese person needs counseling about exercise and diet, but many would likely benefit

from improvements in these activities. Regular exercise and a healthy diet aid in maintaining normal blood

cholesterol levels, weight loss, and blood pressure control efforts, reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke,

diabetes, and other comorbidities of obesity.

National Healthcare 77 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Lifestyle Modification

Percent

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Total

<High School 

High School Grad

 Some College

50

55

60

65

70

75

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Black

0

Z
Figure 2.26. Adults with obesity who ever received advice from a health provider about eating fewer

high-fat or high-cholesterol foods, by race, ethnicity, income, and education, 2002-2006 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Obesity is defined as a body mass index of 30 or higher. Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives, as well as in 2002 for people of more than one race.

National Healthcare 78 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Lifestyle Modification

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

>1 Race

Black

Percent

2003

2004

2005

White

2002

2006

0

Z

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

Z

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Percent

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

Z

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Percent

High School Grad

<High School Some College

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

Z
u From 2002 to 2006, there were no statistically significant changes in the percentage of obese adults who

were given advice about eating fewer high-fat or high-cholesterol foods, with the exception of

Hispanics, which increased (from 35.6% to 42.2%; Figure 2.26).

u In 2006, the percentage was significantly lower for Blacks than for Whites (44.5% compared with

51.5%) and for Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites (42.2% compared with 53.6%).

u In 2006, the percentage of obese adults who received advice about eating fewer high-fat or highcholesterol foods was significantly lower for poor, near-poor, and middle-income adults compared with

high-income adults (43.3%, 46.6%, and 47.4%, respectively, compared with 56.8%).

u In 2006, the percentage of obese adults who were given advice about eating fewer high-fat or highcholesterol foods was significantly lower for people with less than a high school education compared

with people with some college education (45.7% compared with 53.4%).

National Healthcare 79 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Lifestyle Modification
Functional Status Preservation and 

Rehabilitation

Prevalence

Noninstitutionalized adults needing help of another person with 

activities of daily living (ADLs) (2007).............................................................................................4.4 million71

Noninstitutionalized adults age 75 years and over needing help of 

another person with ADLs (2007)................................................................................................................11%71

Noninstitutionalized adults needing help with instrumental 

activities of daily living (IADLs) (2007)...........................................................................................8.6 million71

Noninstitutionalized adults age 75 years and over needing help with IADLs (2007)...............................20%71

Nursing home residents needing help with ADLs (2004) ................................................................1.5 million72

Cost

Medicare payments for outpatient physical therapy (2006 est.) ......................................................$3.1 billion73

Medicare payments for outpatient occupational therapy (2006 est.).............................................$747 million73

Medicare payments for outpatient speech-language pathology services (2006 est.)....................$270 million73

Note: Cost estimates for nursing home and home health services include costs only for freestanding skilled nursing facilities, nursing

homes, and home health agencies, not facilities that are hospital based.

A person’s ability to function can decline with disease or age. Some health care interventions can help

prevent diseases that commonly cause declines in functional status. Other interventions can help patients

regain function that has been lost. This section highlights one measure of prevention (osteoporosis screening

in women) and one measure of home health care quality (improvement in walking or moving around). 

Prevention: Osteoporosis Screening in Women

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by loss of bone tissue. About 10 million people in the United States

have osteoporosis and another 34 million with low bone mass are at risk of developing the disease.74 Women

represent two-thirds of those at risk for or diagnosed with osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis increases the risk of fractures of the hip, spine, and wrist, and about half of all postmenopausal

women will experience an osteoporotic fracture.75 Osteoporotic fractures cost the U.S. health care system

$17 billion each year and cause considerable morbidity and mortality. For example, of patients with hip

fractures, one-fifth will die during the first year, one-third will require nursing home care, and only one-third

will return to the functional status they had before the fracture.76

Because older women are at highest risk for osteoporosis, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

recommends routine osteoporosis screening of women age 65 and over. Women with low bone density can

reduce their risk of fracture and subsequent functional impairment by taking appropriate medications.77

National Healthcare 80 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation
Figure 2.27. Female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who reported ever being screened for

osteoporosis with a bone mass or bone density measurement, by race, ethnicity, and income, 2001,

2003, and 2006 

Source: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 2001, 2003, and

2006.

Denominator: Female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over

living in the community.

National Healthcare 81 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation

0

20

40

60

80

100 Black >1 Race

Percent

2003

White

2001

2006

Total

API

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2001

2003

2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2001

2003

2006
u From 2001 to 2006, the percentage of female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who reported ever

being screened for osteoporosis with a bone mass or bone density measurement increased overall and

among all racial, ethnic, and income groups.

u In 2006, the percentage of female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who reported ever being

screened for osteoporosis was significantly lower among Blacks compared with Whites (38.3%

compared with 67.1%; Figure 2.27).

u In 2006, the percentage of female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who reported ever being

screened for osteoporosis was significantly lower among Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic

Whites (55.3% compared with 67.8%).

u In 2006, the percentage of female Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who reported ever being

screened for osteoporosis was significantly lower for all income groups compared with the high-income

group (poor, 46.4%; near poor, 56.8%; and middle income, 72.3%, compared with 80.4%).

National Healthcare 82 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation
Outcome: Improvement in Ambulation in Home Health

Care Patients 

How well a patient improves in ability level while getting home health care is a reflection of the provider’s

quality of service; patient factors, such as mobility and fear of falling; and the patient’s available support

system. Improved ambulation (i.e., getting better at walking or using a wheelchair) is a measure of improved

outcomes.

xiii

Figure 2.28. Adult home health care patients whose ability to walk or move around improved, by race

and ethnicity, 2002-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS), 2002-2007.

Denominator: Episodes for adult nonmaternity patients receiving at least some skilled home health care.

Note: An episode is a 60-day period during which a patient is under the direct care of a home health agency. It starts with the

beginning/resumption of care and finishes when the patient is discharged from home health care or is transferred to an inpatient

facility. Some patients have multiple episodes in a year. Data are reported only for those patients who were not already performing at

the highest level of ambulation.

xiii In cases of patients with some neurologic conditions, such as progressive multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease,

ambulation may not improve even when the home health service provides good care.

National Healthcare 83 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation

25

30

35

40

45

50

White

Black

Asian

NHOPI

>1 Race

AI/AN

Percent

2002

2003

0

Z

2004

2005

Total

2006

2007

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent

2002

2003

0

Z

2004

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2005

2006

2007
u From 2002 to 2007, the percentage of home health care patients who got better at walking or moving

around improved for the total population (from 33.9% to 43.3%), as well as for each racial and ethnic

group. 

u In 2007, Blacks and AI/ANs were less likely than Whites to get better at walking or moving around

(40.3% for Blacks and 42.1% for AI/ANs compared with 43.6% for Whites; Figure 2.28). Asians and

NHOPIs were more likely than Whites to get better at walking or moving around (47% for Asians and

47.5% for NHOPIs compared with 43.6% for Whites).

u In 2007, the rate of Hispanic home health patients who got better at walking or moving around was

lower than for non-Hispanic White patients (42.0% compared with 43.6%).

National Healthcare 84 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation
Supportive and Palliative Care

Prevalence

Number of nursing home residents ever admitted during the calendar year (2007).........................3,196,31078

Number of fee-for-service (FFS) home health patients (2006) .........................................................3,031,81479

Number of Medicare FFS beneficiaries using Medicare hospice services (2006)..............................935,56580

Cost

Total costs of nursing home care (2007 est.).................................................................................$131.3 billon81

Total costs of home health care (2007 est.).......................................................................................$59 billion81

Medicare FFS payments for hospice services (2008 est.).............................................................$11.2 billion82

Note: Cost estimates for nursing home and home health services include costs only for freestanding skilled nursing facilities, nursing

homes, and home health agencies, not facilities that are hospital based.

This section highlights two core measures of nursing home quality of care: use of physical restraints and

presence of pressure sores. It also includes one measure of home health care quality: episodes with acute

care hospitalization. In addition, this section includes supplemental measures on referral to hospice at the

right time and management of pain in hospice care.

Management: Use of Physical Restraints on Nursing Home

Residents

Although restraining nursing home residents is sometimes a component of keeping residents safe and well

cared for, residents who are restrained daily can become weak, lose their ability to go to the bathroom by

themselves, and develop pressure sores or other medical complications. Restraints should be used only when

they are necessary as part of medical treatment.

National Healthcare 85 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care
Figure 2.29. Long-stay nursing home residents with physical restraints, by race/ethnicity, 2000-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or

Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Minimum

Data Set, 2000-2007. Data are from the third quarter of each

calendar year.

Denominator: Long-stay nursing home residents, all ages.

Note: White, Black, API, and AI/AN are non-Hispanic groups.

Long-stay residents are people in an extended/permanent nursing

home stay.

u From 2000 to 2007, the percentage of long-stay nursing home residents who were physically restrained

decreased from 10.4% to 5.0% (Figure 2.29).

u From 2000 to 2007, the gap between APIs and Whites in the percentage of residents who were

physically restrained decreased. However, in 2007, the percentage of residents who were physically

restrained was still higher for APIs than for Whites (6.0% compared with 5.0%).

u From 2000 to 2007, the gap between Hispanics and Whites decreased. However, in 2007, the

percentage of residents who were physically restrained was still higher for Hispanics than for Whites

(7.0% compared with 5.0%).

National Healthcare 86 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Black

API

2000

2001

AI/AN

Percent

2002

2003

Hispanic

2004

Total

2005

2006

2007
Outcome: Pressure Sores in Nursing Home Residents

A pressure ulcer, or pressure sore, is an area of broken-down skin caused by sitting or lying in one position

for an extended time. Residents should be assessed by nursing home staff for presence or risk of developing

pressure sores. Nursing homes can help to prevent or heal pressure sores by keeping residents clean and dry

and by changing their position frequently or helping them move around. Other interventions include making

sure residents get proper nutrition and using soft padding to reduce pressure on the skin. However, some

residents may get pressure sores even when a nursing home provides good preventive care.

Figure 2.30. High-risk long-stay nursing home residents (left) and short-stay residents (right) with

pressure sores, by race/ethnicity, 2000-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Minimum Data Set, 2000-2007. Data for long-stay residents are from the third

quarter of each calendar year. Data for short-stay residents are full calendar-year estimates.

Denominator: Long-stay nursing home residents and short-stay nursing home residents.

Note: White, Black, API, and AI/AN are non-Hispanic groups. Long-stay residents are people in an extended/permanent nursing

home stay. Short-stay residents are people who need skilled nursing care or rehabilitation services following a hospital stay but are

expected to return home.

High-risk long-stay nursing home residents

u From 2000 to 2007, the percentage of high-riskxiv long-stay residents who developed pressure sores

decreased from 13.9% to 12.0% (Figure 2.30). Improvements were observed for all groups.

xiv “High-risk” residents are those who are in a coma, who do not get or absorb the nutrients they need to maintain skin health,

or who cannot move or change position on their own. Conversely, “low-risk” residents can be active, can change positions,

and are getting and absorbing the nutrients they need.

National Healthcare 87 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care

0

10

20

30 White

Black

API

2000

2001

2007

AI/AN

Percent 

2002

2003

Hispanic

2004

Total

2005

2006

0

10

20

30 White

Black

API

2000

2001

AI/AN

Percent 

2002

2003

Hispanic

2004

Total

2005

2006

2007
u In 2007, the percentage of high-risk long-stay residents who developed pressure sores was significantly

higher for Blacks (15.5%), AI/ANs (13.1%), and Hispanics (13.4%) than for Whites (11.3%).

u In 2007, the percentage of high-risk long-stay residents who developed pressure sores was significantly

higher for males than for females (14.8% compared with 11.0%; data not shown).

Short-stay nursing home residents

u From 2000 to 2007, the percentage of short-stay residents who had pressure sores decreased

significantly for all groups (Figure 2.30). 

u In 2007, Black (22.7%), API (20.8%), and AI/AN (21.0%) short-stay residents were still more likely

than Whites (19.0%) to have pressure sores.

u In 2007, Hispanic short-stay residents were still more likely than Whites to have pressure sores (23.3%

compared with 19.0%).

u In 2007, the percentage of short-stay residents who had pressure sores was higher for males than for

females (21.8% compared with 18.3%; data not shown).

Outcome: Acute Care Hospitalization of Home Health Care

Patients

Improvement in the acute care hospitalization outcome is demonstrated by a decrease in the percentage of

patients who had to be admitted to the hospital; lower percentages are desirable. Acute care hospitalization

may be avoided if home health staff adequately check the patient’s health condition at each visit to detect

problems early. However, patients may need to enter the hospital while they are getting home health care. In

some cases, this may not be avoidable even with good home health care.

National Healthcare 88 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care
Figure 2.31. Adult home health care patients who were admitted to the hospital, by race and ethnicity,

2002-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Outcome and Assessment Information Set, 2002-2007.

Denominator: Episodes for adult nonmaternity patients receiving at least some skilled home health care.

Note: An episode is the time during which a patient is under the direct care of a home health agency. It starts with the

beginning/resumption of care and finishes when the patient is discharged from home health care or is transferred to an inpatient

facility. Some patients have multiple episodes in a year.

u In 2007, the percentage of home health care patients admitted to the hospital was higher for Blacks than

for Whites (33.8% compared with 27.2%; Figure 2.31).

u The gap increased between AI/ANs and Whites in the percentage of home health care patients who

were admitted to the hospital. In 2007, the percentage was higher for AI/ANs than for Whites (33.1%

compared with 27.2%).

u In 2007, the percentage was lower for Asians than for Whites (22.6% compared with 27.2%).

u In 2007, the percentage was higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (31.0% compared with

27.2%).

National Healthcare 89 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care

0

10

20

30

40

50 White

Black

Asian

NHOPI >1 Race

AI/AN

Percent 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

2002

2003

2004

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2005

2006

2007
Management: Referral to Hospice Care at the Right Time

Hospice care is generally delivered at the end of life to patients with a terminal illness or condition who

desire palliative medical care; it also includes psychosocial and spiritual support for the patient and family.

The goal of end-of-life care is to achieve a “good death,” defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as one

that is “free from avoidable distress and suffering for patients, families, and caregivers; in general accord

with the patients’ and families’ wishes; and reasonably consistent with clinical, cultural, and ethical

standards.”83

The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization’s Family Evaluation of Hospice Care survey

examines the quality of hospice care for patients and their family members.xv Family respondents report how

well hospices respect patient wishes, communicate about illness, control symptoms, support dying on one’s

own terms, and provide family emotional support.84 

Research suggests that late referral to hospice results in unmet needs for some patients and caregivers.85

Therefore, the perception of timeliness of referral is an indicator of adequacy of access to hospice care. 

xv This annual survey provides unique insight into end-of-life care and captures information about a large percentage of

hospice patients but is limited by nonrandom data collection and a response rate of about 40%. In addition, race and ethnicity

were not reported by large numbers of respondents. These limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings.

National Healthcare 90 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care
Figure 2.32. Hospice patient caregivers who perceived patient was NOT referred to hospice at the right

time, by race, ethnicity, and education, 2008 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API =

Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: National Hospice and Palliative Care

Organization, Family Evaluation of Hospice Care, 2008.

Denominator: Adult hospice patients.

Note: Caregivers were family members who interacted

with hospice providers.

u Overall in 2008, 11.3% of hospice patient caregivers perceived hospice patients were not referred to

hospice care at the right time (Figure 2.32).

u The percentage of caregivers who perceived hospice care was not referred at the right time was lower

for Blacks than for Whites (11.6% compared with 12.0%).

u The percentage of caregivers who perceived hospice care was not referred at the right time was higher

for AI/ANs than for Whites (14.8% compared with 12.0%).

u The percentage of caregivers who perceived hospice care was not referred at the right time was lower

for caregivers with less than a high school education (8.8%) and high school graduates (9.6%) than for

caregivers with any college education (13.5%).

u The percentage of caregivers who perceived hospice care was not referred at the right time was higher

for females than for males (12.9% compared with 9.6%; data not shown).

National Healthcare 91 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care

White

Percent

Black

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Total

<High School 

High School Grad

Any College

0

5

10

15

20

25

AI/AN

API
Management: Receipt of Right Amount of Pain Medicine by

Hospice Patients 

Addressing the comfort aspects of care, such as relief from pain, fatigue, and nausea, is an important

component of hospice care.xvi 

Figure 2.33. Hospice patients who did NOT receive the right amount of medicine for pain, by race,

ethnicity, and education, 2008

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API =

Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: National Hospice and Palliative Care

Organization, Family Evaluation of Hospice Care, 2008.

Denominator: Adult hospice patients.

u In 2008, the percentage of hospice patients whose families reported that they did not receive the right

amount of medicine for pain was 5.5% (Figure 2.33).

u The percentage of hospice patients whose families reported that they did not receive the right amount of

medicine for pain was significantly higher for Blacks (8.4%) and APIs (10.6%) than for Whites (5.4%).

u The percentage of hospice patients whose families reported that they did not receive the right amount 

of medicine for pain was also higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (7.0% compared 

with 5.4%).

xvi This measure is based on responses from a family member of the deceased patient. It should be noted that family members

may or may not be able to determine whether the right amount of medicine for pain was administered.

National Healthcare 92 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Supportive and Palliative Care

White

Percent

Black

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Total

<High School 

High School Grad

Any College

0

5

10

15

AI/AN

API
Patient Safety

Mortality

Number of Americans who die each year from medical errors (1999 est.) ...............................44,000-98,00086

Number of Americans who die in the hospital each year due to one 

of 18 types of medical injuries (2000 est.)...................................................................................at least 32,00087

Prevalence

Rate of adverse drug reactions during hospital admissions...........................................................2.0%-6.7%88-91 

Rate of adverse drug events among Medicare beneficiaries 

in ambulatory settings ................................................................................................50 per 1,000 person-years*

Cost

Cost (in lost income, disability, and health care costs) attributable 

to medical errors (1999 est.)............................................................................................$17 billion-$29 billion86

Groups with higher rates of some adverse safety events.......................................................racial minorities92, 93

In 1999, the IOM published To Err Is Human, which called for a national effort to reduce medical errors and

increase patient safety.86 The IOM defines patient safety as freedom from accidental injury due to medical

care or medical errors.86 In response to the IOM’s report on patient safety, President Bush signed the Patient

Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Patient Safety Act). The act was designed to spur the

development of voluntary, provider-driven initiatives to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of patient

care. The Patient Safety Act addresses many of the current barriers to improving patient care. 

Several factors limit our current ability to aggregate data in sufficient numbers to rapidly identify the most

prevalent risks and hazards in the delivery of patient care, their underlying causes, and the practices that are

most effective in mitigating them. These include the reluctance of providers to participate in improvement

initiatives, based on fear of increased liability; and difficulty in aggregating and sharing data confidentially

across facilities or State lines. 

To Err Is Human does not mention race or ethnicity when discussing the problem of patient safety. A 2006

review of the literature found that only 9 of 323 articles on pediatric patient safety (2.8%) included race or

ethnicity in the analysis. Five of the nine studies from this review used data from the Agency for Healthcare

Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP).94

This section highlights five measures of patient safety in three areas:

u Health care-associated infections (HAIs).

u Other complications of hospital care.

u Complications of medications.

For findings related to all core measures of patient safety, refer to Table 2.2a.

* For a discussion, refer to Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, et al. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events

among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA 2003 Mar 5; 289:1107-16.

National Healthcare 93 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety
Health Care-Associated Infections

Postoperative Wound Infections

Infections acquired during hospital stays (health care-associated or nosocomial infections) are among the

most serious safety concerns. A common HAI is a wound infection following surgery. Hospitals can reduce

the risk of wound infection after surgery by making sure patients get the right antibiotics at the right time on

the day of their surgery. However, taking these antibiotics for more than 24 hours after routine surgery is

usually not necessary and can increase the risk of side effects, such as stomachaches, serious types of

diarrhea, and antibiotic resistance. 

Among adult hospital patients having surgery, the NHDR tracks an opportunities model composite of two

measures: receipt of antibiotics within 1 hour prior to surgical incision and discontinuation of antibiotics

within 24 hours after the end of surgery.

Figure 2.34. Composite measure: Adult surgery patients who received appropriate timing of antibiotics,

by race/ethnicity, 2005-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare

Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2005-2007.

Denominator: Medicare patients age 18 and over having surgery.

Note: Whites, Blacks, Asians, and AI/ANs are non-Hispanic

groups. Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders. Appropriate timing of antibiotics

received by adult surgical patients for all payers included in this

composite are: (1) antibiotics started within 1 hour of surgery, and

(2) antibiotics stopped within 24 hours after surgery.

u From 2005 to 2007, the percentage of appropriately timed antibiotics provided to surgery patients

improved substantially for the overall population as well as for each racial and ethnic group.

u In 2007, the percentage of appropriately timed antibiotics provided to surgery patients was significantly

lower for Blacks (85.8%), Asians (84.6%), AI/ANs (85.2%), and Hispanics (80.9%) than for Whites

(86.8%; Figure 2.34).

National Healthcare 94 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Black

Asian

AI/AN

Percent 

Hispanic

2007

Total

2005

2006

Z

0
Deaths Following Complications of Care

Many complications that arise during hospital stays cannot be prevented. However, rapid identification and

aggressive treatment of complications may prevent these complications from leading to death. This indicator,

also called “failure to rescue,” tracks deaths among patients whose hospitalizations are complicated by

pneumonia, thromboembolic event, sepsis, acute renal failure, shock, cardiac arrest, gastrointestinal bleeding,

or acute ulcer.

Figure 2.36. Deaths per 1,000 discharges with complications potentially resulting from care (failure to

rescue), adults ages 18-74, by race/ethnicity, 2001-2006

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient

Databases (SID) disparities analysis file, 2001-2006.

Denominator: Patients ages 18-74 from U.S. community

hospitals whose hospitalizations were complicated by

pneumonia, thromboembolic event, sepsis, acute renal failure,

shock, cardiac arrest, gastrointestinal bleeding, or acute ulcer. 

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Data were not

available for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Data are

adjusted for age, gender, and all patient refined-diagnosis

related group clusters. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is

designed to provide national estimates using weighted records

from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the

U.S. resident population.

u From 2001 to 2006, there was significant improvement overall in the rates of in-hospital deaths

following complications of care (from 152.2 per 1,000 in 2001 to 116.8 per 1,000 in 2006; Figure 2.36).

u During this period, initially the rates of in-hospital deaths following complications of care in Blacks

were higher than in non-Hispanic Whites, but eventually they became lower. In 2006, the rate among

Blacks was 111.0 per 1,000 discharges compared with 117.1 per 1,000 for non-Hispanic Whites.

u In 2006, Hispanics had a higher rate of in-hospital deaths following complications of care than nonHispanic Whites (122.1 per 1,000 compared with 117.1 per 1,000). 

National Healthcare 96 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety

100

125

150

175

200

Non-Hispanic White

Black

2003

2005

Rate

2001

Total Hispanic

API

2002

2004

2006
Figure 2.37. Deaths per 1,000 discharges with complications potentially resulting from care (failure to

rescue), adults ages 18-74, by income, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient

Databases (SID) disparities analysis file, 2006.

Denominator: Patients ages 18-74 from U.S. community

hospitals whose hospitalization is complicated by pneumonia,

thromboembolic event, sepsis, acute renal failure, shock,

cardiac arrest, gastrointestinal bleeding, or acute ulcer. 

Note: Data are adjusted for age, gender, and diagnosis-related

group clusters. Quartile income categories are used instead of

the NHDR’s usual descriptive categories because that is how

data are collected for this measure. Quartile 1 corresponds to

the lowest income quartile, and Quartile 4 corresponds to the

highest income quartile. Income categories are based on the

median household income of the ZIP Code of the patient’s

residence. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is designed to

provide national estimates using weighted records from a

sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the U.S.

resident population.

u In 2006, people living in communities in Quartile 1 (lowest income) had a higher rate of in-hospital

deaths following complications of care than people living in communities in Quartile 4 (highest

income) (118.8 per 1,000 compared with 114.4 per 1,000; Figure 2.37).

National Healthcare 97 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety

Quartile 2

Rate

Quartile 1

Quartile 3

(Lowest Income)

100

105

110

115

120

125

Quartile 4

(Highest Income)
Complications of Medications

Complications of medications are common safety problems. Some adverse drug events may be related to

misuse of medication, but others are not. However, prescribing medications that are inappropriate for a

specific population may increase the risk of adverse drug events.

Adverse Drug Events in the Hospital

Some medications used in hospitals can cause serious complications. The Medicare Patient Safety

Monitoring System tracks a number of “high-risk” drugs and the adverse events associated with them.

Adverse drug events can include serious bleeding associated with intravenous heparin, subcutaneously

administered low-molecular-weight heparin, and oral warfarin, as well as hypoglycemia associated with

insulin or oral hypoglycemics.

Figure 2.38. Medicare hospital patients with medication-related adverse drug events, by race, 

2004-2007 

National Healthcare 98 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety

0

5

10

15

20

25 Total

Black

Percent 

2004

2005

2006

White

2007

Intravenous heparin

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Black

2005

Percent

2006

Total

2004

2007

Low-molecular-weight heparin
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (MPSMS), 2004-2007.

Denominator: Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) discharges from the MPSMS sample that received the drug, all ages.

Note: Data were not collected for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and

Hispanics. In 2007, data for adverse drug events for intravenous heparin among Blacks were not statistically reliable.

u In 2007, between 3.4% and 8.9% of hospitalized Medicare patients overall experienced an adverse drug

event in the hospital, depending on the type of drug (Figure 2.38).

u From 2004 to 2006, the percentage of patients taking intravenous heparin who experienced an adverse

drug event significantly decreased overall (from 14.6% to 8.9%). In 2006, there was no statistically

significant difference between Blacks and Whites (no statistically reliable data were available for Blacks

in 2007).

u From 2004 to 2007, the percentage of patients taking low-molecular-weight heparin who experienced

an adverse drug event decreased overall (from 9.7% to 3.4%). There was no statistically significant

difference between Blacks and Whites.

u From 2004 to 2007, the percentage of patients taking warfarin who experienced an adverse drug event

decreased overall (from 8.8% to 4.2%).

u From 2004 to 2007, the percentage of patients taking insulin or hypoglycemics who experienced an

adverse drug event decreased overall (from 10.7% to 7.8%). In 2007, Blacks were more likely than

Whites to experience an adverse event with insulin (10.2% compared with 7.4%).

National Healthcare 99 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Black

2005

Percent

2006

Total

2004

2007

Warfarin

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Black

2005

Percent

2006

Total

2004

2007

Insulin
Potentially Inappropriate Medication Prescriptions for

Older Patients

Some drugs that are appropriate for some patients are considered potentially harmful for older patients but

are still prescribed to them.95, xvii Inappropriate medication use by older patients includes the use of drugs that

should often or always be avoided for these patients.

Figure 2.39. Adults age 65 and over who received potentially inappropriate prescription medications in

the calendar year, by race, ethnicity, income, education, insurance status, and gender, 2006 

xviiEleven drugs that should always be avoided for older patients include barbiturates, flurazepam, meprobamate,

chlorpropamide, meperidine, pentazocine, trimethobenzamide, belladonna alkaloids, dicyclomine, hyoscyamine, and

propantheline. Drugs that should often or always be avoided for older patients include carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone,

cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, amitriptyline, chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, doxepin, indomethacin,

dipyridamole, ticlopidine, methyldopa, reserpine, disopyramide, oxybutynin, chlorpheniramine, cyproheptadine,

diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, promethazine, and propoxyphene.

National Healthcare 100 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Safety

White

Percent

Black

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Non-Hispanic

White

Percent

Hispanic

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20
Timeliness

Timeliness is the health care system’s capacity to provide care quickly after a need is recognized. For

patients, lack of timeliness can result in emotional distress, physical harm, and financial consequences.96, 97

For example, stroke patients’ mortality and long-term disability are largely influenced by the timeliness of

therapy.98, 99 Timely delivery of appropriate care can also help reduce mortality and morbidity for chronic

conditions such as chronic kidney disease,100 and timely antibiotic treatments are associated with improved

clinical outcomes.101 Timely delivery of childhood immunizations helps maximize protection from vaccinepreventable diseases while minimizing risks to the child and reducing the chance of disease outbreaks.102 

Early care for comorbid conditions has been shown to reduce hospitalization rates and costs for Medicare

beneficiaries.103 Some research suggests that, over the course of 30 years, the costs of treating diabetic

complications can approach $50,000 per patient.104 Timely outpatient care also can reduce admissions for

pediatric asthma, which account for $1.25 billion in total hospitalization charges annually.105 

The measures of timeliness highlighted in this section are getting care for illness or injury as soon as wanted

and timeliness of cardiac reperfusion for heart attack patients. (For findings related to all core measures of

timeliness, refer to Tables 2.3a and 2.3b.)

Getting Care for Illness or Injury As Soon As Wanted

The ability of patients to receive illness and injury care in a timely fashion is a key element in a patientcentered health care system.

National Healthcare 102 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness
Figure 2.40. Adults who needed care right away for an illness, injury, or condition in the last 12 months

who sometimes or never got care as soon as wanted, by race, ethnicity, and income, 2002-2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and

over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders and for American Indians and Alaska

Natives.

National Healthcare 103 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005

Percent

2003

White

Black

2004

Asian

2006

Total

2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005

Percent

2002

2003

2004

2006

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005

Percent

2002

2003

2004

2006

Poor

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income
u In 2006, Blacks fared worse than Whites on this measure of timeliness (16.5% compared with 14.7%;

Figure 2.40).

u In 2006, Asians also were more likely than Whites to report problems getting care as soon as wanted

(21.3% compared with 14.7%).

u During this period, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of adults who

reported delayed care remained the same. In 2006, Hispanics remained more likely than non-Hispanic

Whites to report problems getting care as soon as wanted (20.6% compared with 13.8%).

u In 2006, poor adults were more than twice as likely as high-income adults to report problems getting

care as soon as wanted (23.0% compared with 10.5%).

Socioeconomic factors may explain at least some of the racial and ethnic differences in timeliness. To

distinguish the effects of race, ethnicity, income, and education on timeliness of primary care, this measure is

stratified by income and education.

Figure 2.41. Adults who needed care right away for an illness, injury, or condition in the last 12 months

who sometimes or never got care as soon as wanted, by race and ethnicity, stratified by income, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

National Healthcare 104 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

White 

Black 

Poor Near

Poor

Middle

Income

High

Income

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

Poor Middle

Income

Near

Poor

High

Income
Figure 2.42. Adults who needed care right away for an illness, injury, or condition in the last 12 months

who sometimes or never got care as soon as wanted, by race and ethnicity, stratified by education, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

u Socioeconomic factors may explain at least some of the racial and ethnic differences in timeliness of

primary care (Figures 2.41 and 2.42).

u High-income and middle-income Hispanics were about 11⁄2 times as likely as high-income and middleincome non-Hispanic Whites to report problems getting care as soon as wanted.

u Among people with a high school education and people with some college education, Blacks were more

likely than Whites to report problems getting care as soon as wanted (18.3% compared with 13% for

high school graduates, and 14.8% compared with 13.5% for people with some college education).

u Among people with some college education, Hispanics were more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to

report problems getting care as soon as wanted (18% compared with 13.2%).

National Healthcare 105 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

White 

Black 

<High School High School 

Grad

Some 

College

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

<High School High School 

Grad

Some 

College
Figure 2.43. Children who needed care right away for an illness, injury, or condition in the last 12

months who sometimes or never got care as soon as wanted, by race, ethnicity, and income, 2002-2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under

age 18.

National Healthcare 106 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness

0

3

6

9

12

15

2002

Percent 

2003

2004

2005

White

Black

Total

2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

2002

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2002

Percent 

2003

2004

2005

2006
u From 2002 to 2006, the percentage whose parents reported problems getting care as soon as wanted

decreased for Hispanic children (from 10.6% to 6.7%) and poor children (from 12.2% to 7.6%) (Figure

2.43).

u In 2006, there were no statistically significant differences observed by race or ethnicity.

u In 2006, children from poor and near-poor families were more likely than children from high-income

families to sometimes or never get care as soon as wanted (7.6% and 10.1%, respectively, compared

with 4.7%).

Emergency Department Visits in Which Patients Left 

Without Being Seen 

In 2006, almost a quarter (24.8%) of patients who had an emergency department (ED) visit in the United

States spent 4 hours or more in the ED, with the same percentage of patients waiting 1 hour or more to be

seen by a physician.106 This finding may reflect the population-based 18% per person increase in ED visit

volumes from 1996 to 2006.106, 107 Although there are many reasons that a patient seeking care in an ED may

leave without being seen, long waits tend to explain many departures.

Figure 2.44. Emergency department visits in which patients left without being seen, by race and

payment source, 2000-2007

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care

Survey, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. 

Denominator: Visits by patients (of all ages) to the EDs of non-Federal, short-stay, and general hospitals. 

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

National Healthcare 107 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2000-2001

Percent 

2001-2002

2003-2004

2004-2005

White

Black

Total

2005-2006

2006-2007

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2000-2001

Percent 

2001-2002

2003-2004

2004-2005

Medicare Uninsured

Private Insurance

2005-2006

2006-2007

Medicaid
u Between 2000-2001 and 2006-2007, the overall percentage of ED visits in which patients left without

being seen remained the same (Figure 2.44).

u In 2006-2007, there was no statistically significant difference between Blacks and Whites in the

percentage of ED visits in which patients left without being seen.

u In 2006-2007, the percentage of ED visits in which Medicaid patients left without being seen remained

the same and was higher than the rate among patients with private insurance (1.8% compared with

1.3%).

u In 2006-2007, the gap between uninsured patients and patients with private insurance remained the

same. Uninsured patients were more than twice as likely to leave without being seen as patients with

private insurance (2.9% compared with 1.3%).

u Medicare patients were the least likely to leave the ED without being seen, with a rate of 0.6% in 2006-

2007.

National Healthcare 108 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness
Timeliness of Cardiac Reperfusion for Heart Attack 

Patients

The capacity to treat hospital patients in a timely manner is especially important for emergency situations

such as heart attacks. Some heart attacks are caused by blood clots. Early actions, such as percutaneous

coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolytic medication, may open blockages caused by blood clots by

restoring blood flow to the heart, thus reducing heart muscle damage and saving lives.108 To be effective,

these actions need to be performed quickly after the start of a heart attack. In the NHDR, we examine a new

measure of timeliness of cardiac reperfusion: receipt of PCI within 90 minutes among appropriate patients.

Figure 2.45. Hospital patients with heart attack who received percutaneous coronary intervention within

90 minutes, by race/ethnicity, 2005-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Quality

Improvement Organization Program, 2005-2007.

Denominator: Patients hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of acute

myocardial infarction who were appropriate candidates for percutaneous

coronary intervention.

u Among heart attack patients, the percentage of patients receiving timely PCI improved for all

race/ethnicity groups from 2005 to 2007 (Figure 2.45). 

u In all years, Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to receive timely PCI compared with Whites. In

2006 and 2007, Asians were also less likely to receive timely PCI compared with Whites.

National Healthcare 109 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Timeliness

White

Black

2006

2007

Percent

2005

Asian

AI/AN

Hispanic

0

Z

25

35

45

55

65

75
Patient Centeredness

The IOM identifies patient centeredness as a core component of quality health care.2 Patient centeredness is

defined as: 

[H]ealth care that establishes a partnership among practitioners, patients, and their families (when

appropriate) to ensure that decisions respect patients’ wants, needs, and preferences and that patients

have the education and support they need to make decisions and participate in their own care.109

Patient centeredness “encompasses qualities of compassion, empathy, and responsiveness to the needs,

values, and expressed preferences of the individual patient.”2 In addition, effective communication between

the provider and the patient is often a legal requirement.*

Patient-centered care is supported by good provider-patient communication so that patients’ needs and wants

are understood and addressed, and patients understand and participate in their own care.109-112 This style of

care has been shown to improve patients’ health and health care.110, 111, 113-115 Unfortunately, many barriers exist

to good communication.

About one-third of Americans are not “health literate,”116, 117 which means they lack the “capacity to obtain,

process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health

decisions.”118 They experience many difficulties, including:

u Less preventive care.119

u Poorer understanding of their conditions and care.116, 120, 121 

u Higher use of emergency and inpatient services and higher rates of rehospitalization.122, 123 

u Lower adherence to medication schedules.122

u Lower participation in medical decisionmaking.124 

Individuals with inadequate health literacy incur higher medical costs and are more likely to have an

inefficient mix of service use compared with those with adequate health literacy.125

Providers also differ in communication proficiency, including varied listening skills and different views from

their patients’ of symptoms and treatment effectiveness.126 Additional factors influencing patient centeredness

and provider-patient communication include:

u Language barriers.

u Racial and ethnic concordance between the patient and provider.

u Effects of disabilities on patients’ health care experiences.

u Providers’ cultural competency. 

* For example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, may require the practitioner or hospital to provide

language interpreters and translate vital documents for limited-English-proficient persons. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, may require the practitioner or hospital to provide sign language interpreters, materials in Braille,

and/or accessible electronic formats for individuals with disabilities.

National Healthcare 110 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness
When health care is patient centered, both underuse and overuse of medical services are reduced.127 Fewer

diagnostic tests and referrals reduce strains on system resources and costs.113

Efforts to remove these possible impediments to patient centeredness are underway within the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS). For example, the Office of Minority Health has developed a set of

Cultural Competency Curriculum Modules that aim to equip providers with cultural and linguistic

competencies to help promote patient-centered care.128, xviii These modules are based on the National Standards

on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services. The standards are directed at health care organizations

and aim to improve the patient centeredness of care for people with limited English proficiency (LEP).

Another example, which is being administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, is

Unified Health Communication, a new Web-based course for providers that integrates concepts related to

health literacy with cultural competency and LEP.xix

In addition, the HHS Office for Civil Rights has issued Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients

Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient

Persons. This guidance explains that recipients of Federal financial assistance must take reasonable steps to

provide LEP people with a meaningful opportunity to participate in HHS-funded programs. Failure to do so

may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, against national

origin discrimination.129

The NHDR includes one core measure of patient centeredness—a composite measure on the patient

experience of care. In addition, this year’s report includes a new supplemental measure of workforce

diversity—race/ethnicity of the Nation’s dental workforce. Having a diverse workforce of health care

providers may be an important component of patient-centered health care for many patients. 

Patients’ Experience of Care

Using methods developed for the CAHPS® (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems)

survey,130 the NHDR uses a composite measure that combines four measures of provider-patient

communication into a single core measure. The four measures are: providers who sometimes or never listen

carefully, explain things clearly, respect what patients say, and spend enough time with patients. Data are

shown for adults and children.

xviii This online program (available at http://www.thinkculturalhealth.org) is accredited for 9 Continuing Medical Education

credits for physicians and 10.8 and 0.9 Continuing Education Units for nurses and pharmacists, respectively.

xix This online program (available at http://www.hrsa.gov/healthliteracy/training.htm) is accredited for 5 Continuing Medical

Education credits for physicians and 5 Continuing Education Units for nurses, physician assistants, pharmacists, and Certified

Health Education Specialists.

National Healthcare 111 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness
Figure 2.46. Composite measure: Ambulatory patients age 18 and over who reported poor

communication with health providers,* by race, ethnicity, and income, 2002-2006

* Average percentage of adults age 18 and over who had a

doctor’s office or clinic visit in the last 12 months and reported

poor communication with health providers (i.e., that their health

providers sometimes or never listened carefully, explained things

clearly, showed respect for what they had to say, and spent

enough time with them).

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and

over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders and for American Indians and Alaska

Natives.

National Healthcare 112 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

0

5

10

15

20

White

Black

Asian >1 Race

Percent 

2002

2003

2004

2005

Total

2006

0

5

10

15

20

2002

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

5

10

15

20

Percent 

2002

2003

2004

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2005

2006
u In 2006, Blacks and Asians were more likely than Whites to report poor communication with their

health providers (10.3% for Blacks and 13.1% for Asians compared with 9.5% for Whites; Figure 2.46).

The difference between people of multiple race and Whites was not statistically significant. 

u In 2006, the percentage reporting poor communication was higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic

Whites (12.2% compared with 9.1%).

u In 2006, the percentage of adults who reported poor communication was higher for poor people than for

high-income people (13.4% compared with 7.1%), and the gap observed for previous data years

remained the same.

Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately of lower education levels. To distinguish the effects of

race, ethnicity, and education on provider-patient communication, this measure is stratified by education level.

Figure 2.47. Composite measure: Adult ambulatory patients who reported poor communication with

health providers,* by race and ethnicity, stratified by education, 2006

* Average percentage of adults age 18 and over who had a doctor’s office or clinic visit in the last 12 months and reported poor

communication with health providers (i.e., that their health providers sometimes or never listened carefully, explained things clearly,

showed respect for what they had to say, and spent enough time with them).

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Sample sizes were too small to provide estimates for Asians with less than a high school education and Asian high school

graduates.

National Healthcare 113 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

White Black

<High School High School

Grad

At Least

Some College

Asian

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

<High School High School

Grad

At Least

Some College

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic
u The amount of education attained explains some of the racial and ethnic differences in provider-patient

communication for patients age 18 and over (Figure 2.47).

u Among high school graduates, Blacks (12.3%) were more likely than Whites (10.0%) and Hispanics

(13.8%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Whites (9.5%) to report poor communication with their

health providers.

Communication in children’s health care can pose a particular challenge, as children are often less able to

express their health care needs and preferences. Often, a third party (e.g., a parent or guardian) is involved in

communication and decisionmaking. Optimal communication in children’s health care can therefore have a

significant impact on receipt of high-quality care and subsequent health status. This is especially true for

children with special health care needs (CSHCN).

National Healthcare 114 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness
Figure 2.48. Composite measure: Children with ambulatory visits whose parents reported poor

communication with health providers,* by race, ethnicity, and family income, 2002-2006

* Average percentage of children under age 18 who had a doctor’s

office or clinic visit in the last 12 months and whose parents or

guardians reported poor communication with their child’s health

providers (i.e., that their health providers sometimes or never

listened carefully, explained things clearly, respected what they

had to say, and spent enough time with them).

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under 

age 18.

Note: Data for Asians (2005 only), multiple-race children (2006

only), Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American

Indians and Alaska Natives did not meet criteria for statistical

reliability. 

National Healthcare 115 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

0

3

6

9

12

15 White

Black

Asian

>1 Race

Percent 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

Percent

2002

2003

Poor

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income

2004

2005

2006
u Overall, the percentage of children whose parents or guardians reported poor communication with their

health providers decreased from 6.7% in 2002 to 4.8% in 2006 (data not shown).

u In 2006, there were no statistically significant differences between Black and White children whose

parents or guardians reported poor communication with their health providers (Figure 2.48).

u From 2002 to 2006, the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of

children whose parents or guardians reported poor communication with their health providers remained

statistically significant. In 2006, the percentage of children whose parents or guardians reported poor

communication with their health providers was still markedly higher for Hispanics than for nonHispanic Whites (7.0% compared with 4.2%).

u In 2006, statistically significant differences among children whose parents or guardians reported poor

communication persisted by income. Percentages remained higher for children from poor (7.7%), nearpoor (6.8%), and middle-income (4.4%) families than for children from high-income families (2.6%).

Racial and ethnic minorities have disproportionately lower incomes. To distinguish the effects of race,

ethnicity, and income on provider-patient communication, this measure is stratified by income level.

Figure 2.49. Composite measure: Children with ambulatory visits whose parents reported poor

communication with health providers,* by race and ethnicity, stratified by income, 2006

* Children under 18 years of age whose parents or guardians reported that their child’s health providers sometimes or never listened

carefully, explained things clearly, respected what they had to say, and spent enough time with them.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 18.

Note: Sample sizes were too small for all income categories to provide estimates for Asians and Pacific Islanders or American Indians

and Alaska Natives. Data were not available for middle- and high-income Blacks or high-income Hispanics. 

National Healthcare 116 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

White Black

Poor Near 

Poor

Middle 

Income

High 

Income

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Poor Near 

Poor

Middle 

Income

High 

Income
u Socioeconomic factors may explain at least some of the racial and ethnic differences in provider-patient

communication for patients under age 18 (Figure 2.49).

u In 2006, among poor people, there was no statistically significant difference between the percentage of

Black and White children whose parents reported poor communication with their health providers.

u Among poor people, Hispanics were as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to report poor communication

with their health providers.

Diversity of the Dental Professionals Workforce

In 2000, more than 30% of Americans identified themselves as members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

It is estimated that by 2050, half of Americans will be members of minority groups.131 Minority providers

are more likely than their White colleagues to practice in underserved minority communities.132, 133 Health

care workforce diversity also is considered to be important for health care research, education,

administration, and policy, both to provide role models and to shape a health care system that meets the

needs of all individuals. 

Diversity increases the opportunities for race- and language-concordant health care visits. It also can

improve cultural competency at the system, organization, and provider levels in several ways. These include

appropriate program design and policies, organizational commitment to culturally competent care, and crosscultural education of colleagues.134 As such, diversity is an important element of a patient-centered health

care encounter.

Previous reports have presented data on diversity in the physician and nursing workforces. This year, the

NHDR presents data on diversity in the dental professions workforce.

Three dental professions are presented in this analysis: dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants.

Dentists diagnose and treat problems with teeth and tissues in the mouth, give advice, and administer

preventive services. Most dentists practice solo, owning their own business and maintaining a support staff

of other administrative and dental professionals. Dentists must receive a doctorate degree in dentistry before

practicing unsupervised, usually requiring at least 8 years of education beyond high school. 

Dental hygienists remove deposits from teeth, teach patients how to practice good oral hygiene, and provide

other preventive dental care. They also examine patients’ teeth and gums, recording the presence of diseases

or abnormalities. To practice as a dental hygienist, one must complete a degree program with an accredited

dental hygiene school and obtain a State license. 

Dental assistants provide support for dentists and dental hygienists by performing a variety of patient care,

office, and laboratory duties. Several training routes may lead to work as a dental assistant, including formal

training at a technical college ranging from 1 to 2 years and on-the-job training.

In the coming years, demand for dental services is expected to increase, as well as delegation of work in

dental settings. Thus, the overall growth rates for dental assistants and dental hygienists are expected to be

higher compared with that of dentists and compared to job growth in the economy as a whole.

National Healthcare 117 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness
Figure 2.50. U.S. dentistry professionals compared with the U.S. population, by race/ethnicity, 2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native;

NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American

Community Survey, 2007. 

Note: All racial groups are non-Hispanic.

u In 2007, 76.3% of the approximately 182,000 dentists in the United States were White; 3.5% were

Black, 12.9% were Asian, and 6.4% were Hispanic (Figure 2.50). Compared with the general U.S.

population, Whites and Asians were overrepresented and Blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented.

u In 2007, 88.9% of the approximately 155,000 dental hygienists were White; 2.2% were Black, 2.8%

were Asian, and 4.8% were Hispanic. Relative to the U.S. population, Whites were overrepresented,

and Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics were underrepresented.

u Also in 2007, there were about 314,000 dental assistants, of whom 69.2% were White, 6.5% were

Black, 4.7% were Asian, and 17.8% were Hispanic. Relative to the U.S. population, Whites, Asians,

and Hispanics were overrepresented, and Blacks were underrepresented.

National Healthcare 118 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

Percent

Dentists

>1 Race

Asian

Dental 

Hygienists

NHOPI

Black

AI/AN

Hispanic

White

Dental 

Assistants

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Other

U.S.

Population
Focus on Care Coordination

Health care in the United States is fragmented and difficult to navigate. Patients often receive medical

services, treatments, and advice from multiple providers in many different care settings. Communication of

important information among providers and between providers and patients frequently entails delays or

inaccuracies or fails to occur at all.

Care coordination is defined as the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more

participants involved in a patient’s care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services.xx It is

multidimensional and essential to preventing adverse events, ensuring efficiency, and making care patient

centered.135, 136 Key elements of care coordination include integrating medical information from multiple

sources and providers and managing patient transitions from one setting of care to another.

The focus on care coordination in this year’s NHDR is a first attempt to provide data on this important topic.

This section does not attempt to provide a comprehensive framework for care coordination; nor does it

provide an exhaustive list of potential measures. Rather, it provides examples where some information is

available. AHRQ hopes that this section will stimulate productive discussions in the area of care

coordination, including development and use of valid, reliable, and feasible quality measures. AHRQ hopes

that this chapter will be the first step in an evolving national discussion on measuring care coordination.

Integration of Information

Patients often seek care from many providers. Medical information generated in different settings may not

be sent to a patient’s primary care provider. Actively gathering and managing all of a patient’s medical

information is an important part of care coordination. Tasks include ensuring that patients are informed of

important findings such as test results, primary care doctors are informed of care from specialists, and

providers within a practice have access to needed information.

No national survey gathers information about these aspects of care coordination. To help fill this gap, we

examined subnational data-gathering activities and identified the Massachusetts Health Quality Partners

(MHQP) Patient Experience Survey as a unique source of this information. MHQP is an independent

organization established in 1995, comprising a broad-based coalition of physicians, hospitals, health plans,

purchasers, consumers, academics, and government agencies. These groups work together to promote

improvement in the quality of health care services in Massachusetts. 

In 2007, MHQP conducted a mail and Internet survey of commercially insured adult and pediatric patients’

experiences of care. The survey included patients being served in primary care practices with at least three

doctors.xxi Several questions related directly to coordination of information across providers and patients.

The survey was completed by 51,000 adult patients and 20,000 parents of pediatric patients receiving care in

more than 400 medical practices in Massachusetts. The response rate was 42%. 

xx This definition was derived from a review of multiple definitions from various sources. For more information, refer to

“Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies: Volume 7—Care Coordination,” available

at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/caregaptp.htm. 

xxi The survey and results are available at http://www.mhqp.org/quality/pes/pesMASumm.asp?nav=031600.

National Healthcare 119 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness
Figure 2.51. Patients who reported that they always received test results, commercially insured adults

ages 18-64 in primary care practices, Massachusetts, 2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; HS =

high school.

Source: Massachusetts Health Quality Partners,

Patient Experience Survey, 2007.

Note: Respondents limited to patients who received a

test in the past year.

u Of adult patients who were sent for a blood test, x-ray, or other test by their personal primary care

doctor, 68% reported that someone from the doctor’s office followed up to give them the test results

(Figure 2.51). 

u Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients were less likely to receive followup on test results than White

patients.

u Patients with less than a high school education were less likely to receive followup than patients with

some college education.

National Healthcare 120 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

White

Percent

Black

Hispanic

Total

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

25

35

45

55

65

75

Asian

AI/AN

0

Z
Figure 2.52. Parents of patients who reported that they always received test results, commercially

insured children under age 18 in primary care practices, Massachusetts, 2007 

Key: HS = high school.

Source: Massachusetts Health Quality Partners,

Patient Experience Survey, 2007.

Note: Respondents limited to patients who received a

test in the past year. Education refers to the parents.

Data were insufficient for this analysis for American

Indians and Alaska Natives.

u Of children who were sent for a test, 69% of parents reported that someone from the doctor’s office

followed up to give the test results (Figure 2.52).

u Black, Hispanic, and Asian children were less likely to receive followup on test results than White

children.

u Children whose parents had less than a high school education were less likely to receive followup than

children whose parents had some college education.

Transitions of Care

As health care conditions and needs change, patients often need to be moved from one setting to another.

These transitions of care place patients at heightened risk of adverse events. Important information may be

lost or miscommunicated as responsibility is delivered to new parties.

A common transition of care is discharge from the hospital, with approximately 39 million community

hospital discharges occurring each year.137 Discharge from a hospital typically indicates improvement in a

patient’s condition so that the patient no longer needs inpatient care. It also means that the patient and

family need to resume responsibility for the patient’s daily activities, diet, medications, and other treatments.

The patient also needs to visit his or her personal doctor and know what to do if his or her condition

deteriorates. 

National Healthcare 121 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

White

Percent

Black

Hispanic

Total

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

25

35

45

55

65

75

Asian

0

Z
Discharge instructions can help ensure that a patient receives the information needed to stay healthy after

leaving the hospital. The NHDR reports on a measure that tracks receipt of written discharge instructions

among adult patients hospitalized for heart failure. This measure reflects these patients’ perceptions of the

discharge information they received.

Figure 2.53. Adult hospital patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge

instructions, 2005-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare

Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2005-2007.

Denominator: Adult patients hospitalized with a principal

diagnosis of heart failure. 

Note: Complete written discharge instructions needed to address

all of the following: activity level, diet, discharge medications,

followup appointment, weight monitoring, and actions to take if

symptoms worsen.

u From 2005 to 2007, the percentage of adult hospital patients with heart failure who were given

complete written discharge instructions improved from 57.5% to 76.0% (Figure 2.53). Improvements

were observed among all racial groups.

u In all years, Hispanics and AI/ANs were less likely than Whites to receive complete written discharge

instructions. 

National Healthcare 122 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2 Patient Centeredness

25

50

75

100

White

Black Asian

AI/AN

Percent 

0

Z

2005

2007

Total

2006

Hispanic
National Healthcare 123 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2

Table 2.1a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Effectiveness of Care

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic 

Cancer

Women age 40 and over who reported 

they had a mammogram within the = = = 

past 2 yearsiii

Breast cancer incidence per 100,000

women age 40 and over diagnosed at 

advanced stageiv

Breast cancer deaths per 100,000 female

population per year 

Adults age 50 and over who received a 

sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or = 

proctoscopy or fecal occult blood test in 

the last 2 yearsiii 

Colorectal cancer diagnosed 

at advanced stageiv 

Colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 

population per yearv 

Diabetes

Composite: Adults with diabetes who had 

hemoglobin A1c measurement, dilated eye = 

exam, and foot exam in the calender yearvi 

End Stage Renal Disease 

Adult hemodialysis patients with adequate 

dialysisvii = 

Dialysis patients under age 70 who were 

registered on a waiting list for = = =

transplantationviii 

i Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iii Source: National Health Interview Survey, 2005. iv Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 2006. This source does not provide rate estimates for Asians and NHOPIs separately but in

aggregate as Asian and Pacific Islander. This source did not collect information for >1 race.

v Source: National Vital Statistics System-Mortality, 2006. This source did not collect information on Asians and NHOPIs separately but in aggregate as

Asian and Pacific Islander. This source did not collect information for >1 race.

vi Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2005.

vii Source: CMS End Stage Renal Disease Clinical Performance Measures Project, 2007. viii U.S. Renal Data System, 2005. This source did not collect information on Asians and NHOPIs separately but in aggregate as Asian and Pacific Islander.

This source did not collect information for >1 race. 

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native. 

‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘‘‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘ ‘

‘

‘

‘

‘
Table 2.1a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Effectiveness of Care (continued)

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic 

Heart Disease 

Composite: Hospital patients with heart 

attack who received recommended = = = 

hospital careiii 

Deaths per 1,000 adult hospital admissions 

with acute myocardial infarctioniv = 

Composite: Hospital patients with heart 

failure who received recommended = 

hospital careiii 

i Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iii Source: CMS Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2007. This source categorizes race/ethnicity information as a single item: non-Hispanic White,

non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native. These contrasts compare each group with non-Hispanic Whites.

iv Source: HCUP State Inpatient Databases disparities analysis file, 2006. This source categorizes race/ethnicity information as a single item: non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander. These contrasts compare each group with non-Hispanic Whites.

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘

‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘

‘

National Healthcare 124 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
Table 2.1a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Effectiveness of Care (continued)

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic 

HIV and AIDS 

New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and overiii = 

Maternal and Child Health

Children ages 19-35 months who received 

all recommended vaccinesiv = = = =

Children ages 2-17 with advice about 

healthy eatingv

 = = = =

Children ages 3-6 who ever had their 

vision checkedv = 

Children ages 2-17 who had a dental 

visit in the past yearv = 

Children ages 2-17 with advice about

physical activityv = = = =

i Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iii Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007. This source categorizes race/ethnicity information as a single item: non-Hispanic White, nonHispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native. These contrasts compare each group with

non-Hispanic Whites.

ivSource: National Immunization Survey, 2007.

v

Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘‘

‘

‘ ‘

‘ ‘

‘‘

‘

‘

National Healthcare 125 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
Table 2.1a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Effectiveness of Care (continued)

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic

Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Adults with a major depressive episode in 

the last 12 months who received treatment 

for depression in the last 12 monthsiii 

Suicide deaths per 100,000 populationiv = 

People age 12 and over who needed 

treatment for illicit drug use or alcohol = =

problem who received such treatmentiii 

Respiratory Diseases 

Adults age 65 and over who ever received 

pneumococcal vaccinationv 

Composite: Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received recommended 

hospital carevi 

Patients with tuberculosis who completed 

a curative course of treatment within = = 

1 year of treatment initiationvii 

i Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iiiSource: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007.

iv Source: National Vital Statistics System-Mortality, 2006. This source did not collect information on Asians and NHOPIs separately but in aggregate as

Asian and Pacific Islander. This source did not collect information for >1 race. 

vSource: National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

vi Source: CMS Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2007. This source categorizes race/ethnicity information as a single item: non-Hispanic White,

non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native. These contrasts compare each group with non-Hispanic

Whites. 

vii Source: CDC National TB Surveillance System, 2005. This source did not collect information on Asians and NHOPIs separately but in aggregate as

Asian and Pacific Islander. This source did not collect information for >1 race. 

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘‘‘‘

‘‘

‘

‘

National Healthcare 126 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
National Healthcare 127 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2

Table 2.1a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Effectiveness of Care (continued)

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic

Lifestyle Modification 

Adults with obesity who ever received

advice to exercise moreiii = = 

Adult current smokers who received

advice to quit smokingiii = 

Adults with obesity who ever received 

advice about healthy eating = 

Supportive and Palliative Care 

Long-stay nursing home residents with

physical restraintsiv 

High-risk long-stay nursing home residents

with pressure soresiv = 

Short-stay nursing home residents 

with pressure soresiv = = 

Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation 

Adult home health care patients whose 

ability to walk or move around improvedv = = = = = =

Adult home health care patients who were 

admitted to the hospitalv = 

i Compared with Whites.

iiCompared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iiiMedical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

ivSource: CMS Minimum Data Set, 2007. This source categorizes race/ethnicity information as a single item: non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, 

Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander. Contrasts compare each group with non-Hispanic Whites. 

v Source: CMS Outcome and Assessment Information Set, 2007.

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘ ‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘‘
National Healthcare 128 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2

Table 2.1b. Socioeconomic Differences in Effectiveness of Care

Core Report Measure Income Educational Insurance

 Differencei Differenceii Differenceiii

 <100% 100-199% 200-399% <HS HS Grad Uninsured

Cancer 

Women age 40 and over who reported 

they had a mammogram within the 

past 2 yearsiv

Breast cancer incidence per 100,000

women age 40 and over diagnosed at 

advanced stagev

Adults age 50 and over who received

a sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or 

proctoscopy or fecal occult blood test 

within the last 2 yearsiv

Colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 

population per yearvi 

Diabetes 

Composite: Adults with diabetes who 

had hemoglobin A1c measurement, 

dilated eye exam, and foot exam in the = = 

calender yearvii 

Maternal and Child Health 

Children ages 19-35 months who 

received all recommended vaccinesviii = 

Children ages 2-17 with advice about 

healthy eatingvii 

Children ages 3-6 who ever had their

vision checkedvii 

Children ages 2-17 who had a dental 

visit in the past yearvii = 

Children ages 2-17 with advice about 

physical activityvii = 

i Compared with persons with family incomes 400% of Federal poverty thresholds or above.

ii Compared with persons with any college education.

iii Compared with persons under 65 with any private health insurance. ivSource: National Health Interview Survey, 2005.

v Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 2006.

viSource: National Vital Statistics System-Mortality, 2006. 

vii Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. viii Source: National Immunization Survey, 2007.

Key: HS=high school.

‘‘‘‘‘‘

‘‘‘‘‘‘

‘‘

‘‘‘‘

‘‘

‘‘‘‘

‘‘‘‘

‘‘‘

‘‘‘
Table 2.1b. Socioeconomic Differences in Effectiveness of Care (continued)

Core Report Measure Income Educational Insurance

 Differencei

 Differenceii Differenceiii

 <100% 100-199% 200-399% <HS HS Grad Uninsured

Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

Adults with a major depressive episode 

in the last 12 months who received 

treatment for the depression in the = = = = =

last 12 monthsiv

Suicide deaths per 100,000 populationv 

People age 12 and over who needed 

treatment for illicit drug use or alcohol = = 

problem who received such treatmentiv 

Lifestyle Modification

Adults with obesity who ever received 

advice to exercise morevi 

Adult current smokers who 

received advice to quit smokingvi = = = = = 

Adults with obesity who ever received 

advice about healthy eatingvi = 

Respiratory Diseases 

Adults age 65 and over who ever 

received pneumococcal vaccinationvii = = 

i

Compared with persons with family incomes 400% of Federal poverty thresholds or above.

ii Compared with persons with any college education.

iiiCompared with persons under 65 with any private health insurance.

iv Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007.

v Source: National Vital Statistics System-Mortality, 2006. 

vi Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

viiSource: National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Key: HS=high school.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘

‘

‘

‘‘‘‘‘‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘

‘‘‘‘‘

National Healthcare 129 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
National Healthcare 130 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2

Table 2.2a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Patient Safety

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic

Health Care-Associated Infections

Adult surgery patients who received 

appropriate timing of antibioticsiii = 

Postoperative Complications

Composite: Adult surgery patients with

postoperative complicationsiii = 

Other Complications of Hospital Care

Composite: Bloodstream infections

or mechanical complications per 1,000 =

central venous catheter placementsiii 

Deaths per 1,000 discharges following 

complications of careiv = =

Complications of Medications

Adults age 65 and over who received

potentially inappropriate 

prescription medicationsv = =

i

Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iii Source: Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System, 2007.

ivSource: HCUP State Inpatient Databases disparities analysis file, 2006. This source categorizes race/ethnicity information as a single item: non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander. These contrasts compare each group with non-Hispanic Whites.

vSource: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. This source did not collect information on Asians and NHOPIs separately but in aggregate as Asian and

Pacific Islander. This source did not collect information for >1 race. 

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘

‘

‘

‘‘‘
Table 2.3a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Timeliness and Patient Centeredness

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic

Timeliness

Adults who sometimes or never got 

care for illness or injury as soon = = = 

as wantediii 

Emergency department visits in which 

patients left without being seeniv = 

Patient Centeredness 

Composite: Adults who reported poor 

provider-patient communicationiii = = 

Composite: Children whose parents

reported poor provider-patient = = = 

communicationiii 

i Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iii Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. This source did not collect information for >1 race.

ivSource: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey – Emergency Department, 2006-2007. Missing rates preclude analysis by ethnicity.

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘

‘

National Healthcare 131 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
National Healthcare 132 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2

Table 2.3b. Socioeconomic Differences in Timeliness and Patient Centeredness

Core Report Measure Income Educational Insurance

 Differencei

 Differenceii Differenceiii

 <100% 100-199% 200-399% <HS HS Grad Uninsured

Timeliness 

Adults who sometimes or never 

got care for illness or injury as soon = 

as wantediv 

Emergency department visits in which 

patients left without being seenv 

Patient Centeredness 

Composite: Adults who reported poor 

provider-patient communicationiv 

Composite: Children whose parents 

reported poor provider-patient =

communicationiv 

i Compared with persons with family incomes 400% of Federal poverty thresholds or above.

ii Compared with persons with any college education.

iii Compared with persons under 65 with any private health insurance.

iv Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

v Source: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey – Emergency Department, 2006-2007. 

Key: HS=high school.

Key to Symbols Used in Quality of Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same quality of health care or have similar outcomes.

Group receives better quality of health care than the comparison group or has better outcomes.

Group receives poorer quality of health care than the comparison group or has worse outcomes.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made

‘‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘
References 

1. Your guide to choosing quality health care. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001. Available at:

http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/qnt/.

2. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for

the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

3. Cancer facts and figures 2009. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2009. Available at:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/STT_0.asp. Accessed on May 7, 2009..

4. Heron M, Hoyert D, Murphy S, et al. Deaths: final data for 2006. Natl Vit Stat Rep 2009;57(14).

5. National Cancer Institute, Statistical Research and Application Branch, Surveillance Research Program, SEER Program. U.S.

estimated prevalence counts on 1/1/2005. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2005. Available at:

http://srab.cancer.gov/prevalence/canques.html. Accessed on November 14, 2008.

6. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Fact book fiscal year 2008. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2008.

Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/factpdf.htm. Accessed on May 7, 2009..

7. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, et al. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic

review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006 Jul;31(1):52-61.

8. Trans-HHS Cancer Health Disparities Progress Review Group. Making cancer health disparities history. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/chdprg/pdf/chdprg.pdf. Accessed on

April 23, 2009.

9. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273;149-54.

10. National Cancer Database. Washington, DC: American College of Surgeons and American Cancer Society; 2005.

11. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year followup of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy,

and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002 Oct 17;347(16):1233-41.

12. Buchholz T, Theriault R, Niland J, et al. The use of radiation as a component of breast conservation therapy in National

Comprehensive Cancer Network Centers. J Clin Oncol 2006 Jan 20;24(3):361-9. Available at:

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/reprint/24/3/361. Accessed on April 23, 2009.

13. Desch C, McNiff K, Schneider E, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network

quality measures. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 20;26(21):3631-7. Accessed on April 23, 2009.

14. National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2007. Atlanta, GA:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates07.htm. Accessed

on June 30, 2008.

15. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Diabetes: successes and opportunities for populationbased prevention and control: at a glance 2009. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/pdf/diabetes.pdf. Accessed on November 14, 2008.

16. National voluntary consensus standards for adult diabetes care: a consensus report. Washington, DC: National Quality

Forum; 2002.

17. National Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance performance measurement set for adult diabetes. Chicago, IL: National

Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance; 2002.

18. National Diabetes Education Program. Guiding principles for diabetes care: for health care providers. Bethesda, MD:

National Institutes of Health; 2009. Publication No. NIH 09-4343. Available at:

http://ndep.nih.gov/media/GuidPrin_HC_Eng.pdf. Accessed on June 7, 2006.

19. Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation. 2007 annual report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and

Transplantation Network and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: transplant data 1997-2006. Rockville, MD: Health

Resources and Services Administration; 2007. Available at: https://www.optn.org/AR2007/chapter_index.htm. Accessed on

November 3, 2008.

National Healthcare 133 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
20. U.S. Renal Data System. 2008 annual data report. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2008. Available at:

http://www.usrds.org/adr_2008.htm. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

21. U.S. Renal Data System. 2009 annual data report. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2009. Available at:

http://www.usrds.org/adr.htm. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

22. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Treatment methods for kidney failure: transplantation.

Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2006. NIH Publication No. 06-4687. Available at:

http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/transplant/. Accessed on June 7, 2006.

23. Wait list and transplant activity for kidneys, 1999-2008 [PowerPoint slide]. Ann Arbor, MI: Scientific Registry of Transplant

Recipients. Available at: http://www.ustransplant.org/csr/current/fastfacts/datatour.aspx.

24. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2009 update. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2009. Available at:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1200026. Accessed on March 25, 2009.

25. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Friday G, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2007 update: a report from the American Heart

Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2007 Feb 6;115(5):e69-171.

26. HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 2007. Vol. 19. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/pdf/2007SurveillanceReport.pdf. Accessed on March

27, 2009.

27. Hall HI, Song R, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA 2008 Aug 6;300(5):520-9.

28. U.S. Federal funding for HIV/AIDS: the President’s FY 2010 budget request. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family

Foundation; 2009. Available at: http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-05.pdf. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

29. Shapiro MF, Morton SC, McCaffrey DF, et al. Variations in the care of HIV-infected adults in the United States: results from

the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study. JAMA 1999 Jun 23-30;281(24):2305-15.

30. HIV/AIDS and African Americans. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/index.htm. Accessed on May 27, 2008.

31. HIV/AIDS among Hispanics/Latinos. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/hispanics/resources/factsheets/hispanic.htm. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

32. Carrillo H, DeCarlo, P. What are the HIV prevention needs of Mexican immigrants in the US?. San Francisco, CA:

University of California Center for AIDS Prevention Studies; 2003. Available at:

http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/mexicans.php. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

33. WISQARS [Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System]. Leading causes of death reports. Atlanta, GA:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

34. Turner BJ, Cunningham WE, Duan N, et al. Delayed medical care after diagnosis in a U.S. national probability sample of

persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Arch Intern Med 2000 Sep 25;160(17):2614-22.

35. HIV and AIDS—United States, 1981-2000. MMWR 2001 Jun 1;50(21):430-4. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm. Accessed on May 5, 2006.

36. Yeargin P, Donnelly R, Weyer D, eds. Clinical management of the HIV-infected adult: a manual for midlevel clinicians.

Atlanta, GA: Southeast AIDS Training and Education Center; 2003. Available at:

http://www.seatec.emory.edu/clinicalprotocols/clinical_protocols_manual2003.pdf. Accessed on May 8, 2006.

37. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2007 traffic safety annual assessment—alcohol-related fatalities:

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2008. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF.

Accessed on April 6, 2009.

38. Office of Applied Studies. Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: national findings. Rockville,

MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2008. Publication No. SMA 08-4343. NSDUH Series H34. Available at: www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k7nsduh/2k7results.pdf. Accessed on April 6, 2009.

National Healthcare 134 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
39. Office of Applied Studies. Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: national findings. Rockville,

MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2006. Publication No. SMA 07-4293Available at:

www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6results.pdf. Accessed on March 27, 2008.

40. Mark T, Levit K, Coffey R, et al. National expenditures for mental health services and substance abuse treatment, 1993-2003.

Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2007. Publication No. SMA 07-4227.

Available at: http://www.samhsa.gov/spendingestimates/SAMHSAFINAL9303.pdf. Accessed on November 14, 2008.

41. Owens P, Myers M, Elixhauser A, et al. Care of adults with mental health and substance abuse disorders in U.S. community

hospitals, 2004. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. AHRQ Publication No. 07-0008.

42. Department of Health Care Policy. Table 2. 12-month prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorders by sex and cohort 1

(n=9282). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University School of Medicine; 2009. Available at:

http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/ftpdir/table_ncsr_12monthprevgenderxage.pdf. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

43. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. Mental health: culture, race,

and ethnicity—a supplement to mental health: a report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services; 2001. Available at: http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/SMA-01-3613/sma-01-3613.pdf.

Accessed on November 3, 2008.

44. Bird D, Dempsey P, Hartley D. Addressing mental health workforce needs in underserved rural areas: accomplishments and

challenges. Portland, ME: Maine Rural Health Research Center, University of Southern Maine; 2001.

45. Shortage designation: HPSAs, MUAs & MUPs; 2009. Rockville, MD: Health Resources and Services Administration; 2009.

Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/. Accessed on December 21, 2009.

46. Alcohol: frequently asked questions. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm#16. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

47. Ringold S, Lynm C, Glass RM. JAMA patient page. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism. JAMA 2006 May 3;295(17):2100.

48. Pleis JR, Lucas JW. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2007. Table 3. Vital Health

Stat 2009;10(240):21. Publication No. (PHS) 2009-1568. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_240.pdf.

49. Bloom B, Cohen RA. Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National Health Interview Survey, 2007. Vital Health Stat

2009;10(239). Publication No. (PHS) 2009-1567.

50. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The common cold: overview. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of

Health. Available at: http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/commonCold/overview.htm. Accessed on November 3, 2008.

51. HCUPnet. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality; 2009. Available at:

http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp. Accessed on July 22, 2009.

52. Fendrick AM, Monto AS, Nightengale B, et al. The economic burden of non-influenza-related viral respiratory tract infection

in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2003 Feb 24;163(4):487-94.

53. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. 2007 chart book on cardiovascular, lung, and blood diseases. Bethesda, MD:

National Institutes of Health; 2007. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/07a-chtbk.pdf. Accessed on June

18, 2008.

54. Davis MM. Race-based immunization recommendations and the potential to reduce health disparities. JAMA 2004 May

12;291(18):2253-5.

55. Flannery B, Schrag S, Bennett NM, et al. Active Bacterial Core Surveillance/Emerging Infections Program Network. Impact

of childhood vaccination on racial disparities in invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections. JAMA 2004 May

12;291(18):2197-203.

56. Kozak LJ, DeFrances CJ, Hall MJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2004 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and

procedure data, table 12: rate of discharges from short-stay hospitals by age and first-listed diagnosis. Vital Health Stat

2006;13(162). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_13/sr13_162.pdf. Accessed on November 3, 2008.

National Healthcare 135 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
57. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert panel report 2:

guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 1997. Available at:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/archives/epr-2/index.htm. Accessed on April 24, 2009.

58. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Key clinical activities for

quality asthma care: recommendations of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. MMWR 2003 Mar

28;52(RR-6). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5206.pdf. Accessed on April 24, 2009.

59. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert panel report:

guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma - update on selected topics 2002. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes

of Health; 2002. Publication No. NIH 03-5074. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/archives/epr2_upd/index.htm. Accessed on November 7, 2008.

60. Szefler S. Leukotriene modifiers: what is their position in asthma therapy? J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998;102(2):170-2.

61. Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses --- United States, 2000--2004. MMWR

2008 57(45):1226-8.

62. Cigarette smoking among adults --- United States, 2007. MMWR 2008 November;57(45):1221-6.

63. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, McDowell MA, et al. Obesity among adults in the United States—no statistically significant change

since 2003-2004. NCHS Data Brief 2007 Nov(1):1-8.

64. Pleis JR, Lucas JW. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2007. Table 28. Vital

Health Stat 2009;10(240):77. Publication No. (PHS) 2009-1568. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_240.pdf.

65. Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW, et al. Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer- and service-specific

estimates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Sep-Oct;28(5):w822-31. Epub 2009 Jul 27.

66. Learn about the risks of smoking. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2008. Available at:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3018961. Accessed on August 12, 2009.

67. Stead LF, Bergson G, Lancaster T. Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(2):CD000165.

68. Office on Smoking and Health. The health benefits of smoking cessation: a report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1990. Publication No. CDC 90-8416. Available at:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/C/T/_/nnbbct.pdf. Accessed on November 14, 2008.

69. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for obesity in adults: recommendations and rationale. Rockville, MD:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/obesity/obesrr.htm.

Accessed on May 8, 2008.

70. Calfas KJ, Long BJ, Sallis JF, et al. A controlled trial of physician counseling to promote the adoption of physical activity.

Prev Med 1996 May-Jun;25(3):225-33.

71. Adams PF, Barnes PM, Vickerie JL. Summary health statistics for the U.S. population: National Health Interview Survey,

2007. Vital Health Stat 2008;10(238). Publication No. (PHS) 2009-1566. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_238.pdf.

72. Jones AL, Dwyer LL, Bercovitz AR, et al. The National Nursing Home Survey: 2004 overview. Vital Health Stat

2009;13(167). Publication No. (PHS) 2009-1738. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_13/sr13_167.pdf.

73. Computer Sciences Corporation, Ciolek D, Hwang W. CY 2006 outpatient therapy services utilization report. Baltimore, MD:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2008. Available at:

www.cms.hhs.gov/TherapyServices/downloads/2_CY2006OutpatientTherapyUtilizationReport_PDF_Final.pdf. Accessed on

August 12, 2009.

74. America’s bone health: the state of osteoporosis and low bone mass in our nation. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis

Foundation; 2002.

75. Office of the Surgeon General. Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the surgeon general. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office; 2004. Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/bonehealth/index.html.

National Healthcare 136 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
76. Lane NE. Epidemiology, etiology, and diagnosis of osteoporosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006 Feb;194(2 Suppl):S3-11.

77. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women Recommendations and Rationale.

In: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 3rd ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002.

Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/osteoporosis/osteorr.htm. Accessed on July 8, 2009.

78. Nursing home data compendium. Table 2.1: Characteristics of nursing home residents in the United States, 2006. Baltimore,

MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2007. Available at:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CertificationandComplianc/Downloads/2007NursingHomeDataCompendium_508.pdf. Accessed on

November 14, 2005.

79. Medicare home health agency utilization by state, calendar year 2006. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareFeeforSvcPartsAB/Downloads/HHAst06.pdf. Accessed on

November 4, 2008.

80. Medicare hospice utilization by state, calendar year 2006. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2006.

Available at: http://www.cms.gov/MedicareFeeforSvcPartsAB/Downloads/Hospice06.pdf. Accessed on April 24, 2009.

81. Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. National health expenditures aggregate amounts and average percent

change, by type of expenditure: selected calendar years 1960-2007: Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid

Services. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf. Accessed on February 25,

2009.

82. Medicare hospice data trends: 1998 - 2008. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2009. Available at:

www.cms.hhs.gov/Hospice/downloads/Hospice_Data_1998-2008.zip. Accessed on December 22, 2009.

83. Field M, Cassell C, eds. Approaching death: improving care at the end of life. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;

1997.

84. Connor SR, Teno J, Spence C, et al. Family Evaluation of Hospice Care: results from voluntary submission of data via

website. J Pain Symptom Manage 2005 Jul;30(1):9-17.

85. Teno JM, Shu JE, Casarett D, et al. Timing of referral to hospice and quality of care: length of stay and bereaved family

members’ perceptions of the timing of hospice referral. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007 Aug;34(2):120-5.

86. Kohn L, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson, MS, eds. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: Institute of

Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America; 2000.

87. Zhan C, Miller MR. Excess length of stay, charges, and mortality attributable to medical injuries during hospitalization.

JAMA 2003 Oct 8;290(14):1868-74.

88. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of

prospective studies. JAMA 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5.

89. Lesar TS, Lomaestro BM, Pohl H. Medication-prescribing errors in a teaching hospital. A 9-year experience. Arch Intern

Med 1997 Jul 28;157(14):1569-76.

90. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs,

and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997 Jan 22-29;277(4):301-6.

91. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. implications for

prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995 Jul 5;274(1):29-34.

92. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, et al. A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003

Mar-Apr;22(2):154-66.

93. Coffey RM, Andrews RM, Moy E. Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in estimates of AHRQ patient safety

indicators. Med Care 2005 Mar;43(3 Suppl):I48-57.

94. Flores G, Ngui E. Racial/ethnic disparities and patient safety. Pediatr Clin North Am 2006 Dec;53(6):1197-215.

95. Zhan C, Sangl J, Bierman AS, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use in the community-dwelling elderly: findings

from the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. JAMA 2001 Dec 12;286(22):2823-9.

National Healthcare 137 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
96. Leddy KM, Kaldenberg DO, Becker BW. Timeliness in ambulatory care treatment. An examination of patient satisfaction and

wait times in medical practices and outpatient test and treatment facilities. J Ambul Care Manage 2003 Apr-Jun;26(2):138-49.

97. Boudreau RM, McNally C, Rensing EM, et al. Improving the timeliness of written patient notification of mammography

results by mammography centers. Breast J 2004 Jan-Feb;10(1):10-19.

98. Schellinger PD, Warach S. Therapeutic time window of thrombolytic therapy following stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2004

Jul;6(4):288-94.

99. Kwan J, Hand P, Sandercock P. Improving the efficiency of delivery of thrombolysis for acute stroke: a systematic review.

QJM 2004 May;97(5):273-9.

100. Kinchen KS, Sadler J, Fink N, et al. The timing of specialist evaluation in chronic kidney disease and mortality. Ann Intern

Med 2002 Sep 17;137(6):479-86.

101. Houck PM, Bratzler DW. Administration of first hospital antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia: does timeliness

affect outcomes? Curr Opin Infect Dis 2005 Apr;18(2):151-6.

102. Luman ET, Barker LE, Shaw KM, et al. Timeliness of childhood vaccinations in the United States: days undervaccinated and

number of vaccines delayed. JAMA 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1204-11.

103. Himelhoch S, Weller WE, Wu AW, et al. Chronic medical illness, depression, and use of acute medical services among

Medicare beneficiaries. Med Care 2004 Jun;42(6):512-21.

104. Caro JJ, Ward AJ, O’Brien JA. Lifetime costs of complications resulting from type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Diab Care 2002

Mar;25(3):476-81.

105. Calculated from Web site: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Kids’

Inpatient Database. Available at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed on April 24, 2009.

106. Pitts S, Niska R, Xu J, et al. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 emergency department summary.

National Health Statistics Reports, no. 7. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2008. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr007.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2009.

107. McCaig L, Nawar E. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 emergency department summary. Advance

Data From Vital and Health Statistics, no. 372. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2006. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad372.pdf. Accessed on November 5, 2008.

108. Kloner RA, Rezkalla SH. Cardiac protection during acute myocardial infarction: where do we stand in 2004? J Am Coll

Cardiol 2004 Jul 21;44(2):276-86.

109. Institute of Medicine. Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;

2001.

110. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000 Sep;49(9):

796-804.

111. Anderson EB. Patient-centeredness: a new approach. Nephrol News Issues 2002 Nov;16(12):80-82.

112. Michie S, Miles J, Weinman J. Patient-centeredness in chronic illness: what is it and does it matter? Patient Educ Couns 2003

Nov;51(3):197-206.

113. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al. Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes

of general practice consultations. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):908-11.

114. DiMatteo MR. The role of the physician in the emerging health care environment. West J Med 1998 May;168(5):328-33.

115. Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD. Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am

Board Fam Pract 2002 Jan-Feb;15(1):25-38.

116. Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Peel J, et al. Health literacy and knowledge of chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns 2003

Nov;51(3):267-75.

117. Parker RM, Ratzan SC, Lurie N. Health literacy: a policy challenge for advancing high-quality health care. Health Aff

(Millwood) 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):147-53.

National Healthcare 138 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
118. Selden C, Zorn M, Ratzan S, et al., compilers. Health literacy: January 1990 through October 1999 [bibliography]. Current

Bibliographies in Medicine 2000 February.

119. Scott TL, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy and preventive health care use among Medicare enrollees in a

managed care organization. Med Care 2002 May;40(5):395-404.

120. Williams MV, Baker DW, Parker RM, et al. Relationship of functional health literacy to patients’ knowledge of their chronic

disease. A study of patients with hypertension and diabetes. Arch Intern Med 1998 Jan 26;158(2):166-72.

121. Williams MV, Baker DW, Honig EG, et al. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self-care. Chest 1998

Oct;114(4):1008-15.

122. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, et al. Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. J Gen Intern Med 1998

Dec;13(12):791-8.

123. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare

managed care enrollees. Am J Pub Hlth 2002 Aug;92(8):1278-83.

124. Berkman N, DeWalt D, Pignone M, et al. Literacy and health outcomes. Summary. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment

No. 87 (Prepared by RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-

02-0016). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004. AHRQ Publication No. 04-E007-1. Available

at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/litsum.htm.

125. Howard DH, Gazmararian J, Parker RM. The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care

enrollees. Am J Med 2005 Apr;118(4):371-7.

126. Rhoades DR, McFarland KF, Finch WH, et al. Speaking and interruptions during primary care office visits. Fam Med 2001

Jul-Aug;33(7):528-32.

127. Berry LL, Seiders K, Wilder SS. Innovations in access to care: a patient-centered approach. Ann Intern Med 2003 Oct

7;139(7):568-74.

128. Office of Minority Health. Think cultural health: bridging the health care gap through cultural competency continuing

education programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at:

www.thinkculturalhealth.org. Accessed on November 6, 2008.

129. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights. Guidance to Federal financial assistance recipients

regarding Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination affecting limited English proficient persons. 68 Fed. Reg.

47311; August 8, 2003. Available at:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/specialtopics/lep/policyguidancedocument.html. Accessed on January 25, 2010.

130. Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS)

2.0 adult core survey. Hlth Serv Res 2003 Dec;38(6 Pt 1):1509-27.

131. Nation’s population to reach 300 million on Oct. 17. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; October 12, 2006. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/007616.html. Accessed on November 6, 2008.

132. Komaromy M, Grumbach K, Drake M, et al. The role of black and Hispanic physicians in providing health care for

underserved populations. N Engl J Med 1996 May 16;334(20):1305-10.

133. Turner CB, Turner BF. Who treats minorities? Cult Divers Ment Health 1996;2(3):175-82.

134. Nickens HW. The rationale for minority-targeted programs in medicine in the 1990s. JAMA 1992 May 6;267(17):2390, 5.

135. Powell Davies G, Williams AM, Larsen K, et al. Coordinating primary health care: an analysis of the outcomes of a

systematic review. Med J Aust 2008 Apr 21;188(8 Suppl):S65-S68.

136. Shojania K, McDonald K, Wachter R, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies--

Volume 7: Care coordination. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. AHRQ Publication No. 04(07)-

0051-7. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/caregaptp.htm. Accessed on June 15, 2009.

137. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. HCUPNet. 2006 national statistics outcomes for all discharges. Rockville, MD:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: www.hcupnet.ahrq.gov.

National Healthcare 139 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
National Healthcare 140 Disparities Report, 2009

Quality of Health Care

Chapter 2
Chapter 3. Access to Health Care

Many Americans have good access to health care that enables them to benefit fully from the Nation’s health

care system. Others face barriers that make it difficult to obtain basic health care services. As shown by

extensive research and confirmed in previous National Healthcare Disparities Reports (NHDRs), racial and

ethnic minorities and people of low socioeconomic status (SES)i are disproportionately represented among

those with access problems. Poor access to health care comes at both a personal and societal cost. For

example, if people do not receive vaccinations, they may become ill and spread disease to others, increasing

the burden of disease for society overall in addition to the burden borne individually.

Components of Health Care Access

Access to health care means having “the timely use of personal health services to achieve the best health

outcomes.”1 Attaining good access to care requires three discrete steps: 

u Gaining entry into the health care system.

u Getting access to sites of care where patients can receive needed services.

u Finding providers who meet the needs of individual patients and with whom patients can develop a

relationship based on mutual communication and trust.2

Health care access is measured in several ways, including:

u Structural measures of the presence or absence of specific resources that facilitate health care, such as

having health insurance or a usual source of care.

u Assessments by patients of how easily they are able to gain access to health care.

u Utilization measures of the ultimate outcome of good access to care (i.e., the successful receipt of

needed services).

How This Chapter Is Organized

This chapter presents new information about disparities in access to health care in America since the last

NHDR. It is divided into two sections:

u Facilitators and barriers to health care, including measures of health insurance coverage, usual

source of care and primary care provider, and patient perceptions of need.

u Health care utilization, including measures of dental care, emergency care, potentially avoidable

admissions, mental health care, and substance abuse treatment.

i As described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods, income and educational attainment are used to measure SES in the

NHDR. Unless specified, poor = below the Federal poverty level (FPL), near poor = 100-199% of the FPL, middle income =

200-399% of the FPL, and high income = 400% or more of the FPL. The measure specifications and data source descriptions

provide more information on income groups by data source.

National Healthcare 141 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Information about provider-patient communication is found in the section on patient centeredness in Chapter

2, Quality of Health Care. As in previous NHDRs, this chapter focuses on disparities in access to care

related to race, ethnicity, and SES in the general U.S. population. This chapter also presents analyses of

changes over time and stratified analyses. Disparities in access to care and provider-patient communication

within specific priority populations are discussed in Chapter 4, Priority Populations. 

Facilitators and Barriers to Health Care

Facilitators and barriers to health care discussed in this section include health insurance, usual source of care

(including having a usual source of ongoing care and a usual primary care provider), and patient perceptions

of need. (Refer to Tables 3.1a and 3.1b for a summary of findings related to all core measures on facilitators

and barriers to health care.)

Health Insurance

Health insurance facilitates entry into the health care system. Uninsured people are less likely to receive

medical care3 and are more likely to die early4 and have poor health status.5 The costs of early death and poor

health among uninsured people total $65 billion to $130 billion annually.4 

The financial burden of uninsurance is also great for uninsured individuals; almost 50% of personal

bankruptcy filings are due to medical expenses.6 Uninsured individuals report more problems getting care,

are diagnosed at later disease stages, and get less therapeutic care.6, 7 They are sicker when hospitalized and

more likely to die during their stay.7

Figure 3.1. People under age 65 with health insurance, by race, ethnicity, income, and education, 1999-2007

National Healthcare 142 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Black

Asian

1999

2000

2001

NHOPI >1 Race

AI/AN

Percent 

2002

2003

0

Z

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

2007

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999

2000

2001

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

2002

2003

0

Z

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

2007
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS),

1999-2007.

Denominator: Analyses by race, ethnicity, and income performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65. Analyses

by education performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 25-64.

Note: NHIS respondents are asked about health insurance coverage at the time of interview; respondents are considered uninsured if

they lack private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a State-sponsored health

plan, other government-sponsored health plan, or a military health plan, or if their only coverage is through the Indian Health Service.

This measure reflects the percentage of survey respondents under age 65 who were covered by health insurance at the time of the

interview.

u From 1999 to 2007, the gap between Blacks and Whites in insurance coverage decreased (Figure 3.1).

In 2007, there was no statistically significant difference between Blacks and Whites in the percentage of

people with insurance (83.0% compared with 83.7%).

u From 1999 to 2007, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in insurance coverage

remained the same. In 2007, the percentage of people with insurance was lower for Hispanics than for

non-Hispanic Whites (68.2% compared with 87.4%).

u The gap between poor people and high-income people decreased during this period. Still, in 2007, the

percentage of people with insurance was significantly lower for poor people than for high-income

people (71.6% compared with 94.4%).

u The gap between people with less than a high school education and people with at least some college

education increased. In 2007, the percentage of people with insurance was one-third lower for people

with less than a high school education than for people with at least some college education (59.2%

compared with 89.0%).

National Healthcare 143 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999

2000

2001

Percent 

Near Poor High Income 

Poor Middle Income

2002

2003

0

Z

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

2007

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999

2000

2001

Percent 

2002

2003

0

Z

2004

2005

High School Grad

At Least

Some College

<High School

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

2007
u From 1999 to 2007, the rates of insurance worsened for Whites and middle-income people. There were

no statistically significant changes in the rate of insurance for Blacks, Asians, Native Hawaiians and

Other Pacific Islanders (NHOPIs), American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), non-Hispanic

Whites, and Hispanics.

u During this period, the rates also worsened for adults ages 25-64 at every education level.

Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately of lower SES.8 To distinguish the effects of race,

ethnicity, income, and education on health insurance coverage, this measure is stratified by income and

education level.

Figure 3.2. People under age 65 with health insurance, by race and ethnicity, stratified by income, 2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS),

2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65.

Note: NHIS respondents are asked about health insurance coverage at the time of interview; respondents are considered uninsured if

they lack private health insurance, public assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a

State-sponsored health plan, other government-sponsored health plan, or a military health plan, or if their only coverage is through the

Indian Health Service. This measure reflects the percentage of survey respondents under age 65 who were covered by health

insurance at the time of the interview.

National Healthcare 144 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poor

Percent 

White

Black

Near

Poor

High 

Income

Asian

Middle 

Income

AI/AN

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

0

Z

>1 Race

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poor

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Near

Poor

High

Income

Middle

Income

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

0

Z
Figure 3.3. People under age 65 with health insurance, by race and ethnicity, stratified by education, 2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS),

2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 25-64.

Note: NHIS respondents are asked about health insurance coverage at the time of interview; respondents are considered uninsured if

they lack private health insurance, public assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a

State-sponsored health plan, other government-sponsored health plan, or a military health plan, or if their only coverage is through the

Indian Health Service. This measure reflects the percentage of survey respondents under age 65 who were covered by health

insurance at the time of the interview.

u SES explains some but not all of the differences in the health insurance coverage of racial and ethnic

groups in people under age 65 (Figures 3.2 and 3.3).

u Hispanics of every income and education level were significantly less likely than their non-Hispanic

peers to have health insurance.

u Blacks who were poor were significantly more likely than their White counterparts to have health

insurance (80.3% compared with 68.3%), as were Blacks with less than a high school education (67.7%

compared with 58.2%). 

u AI/ANs at every income level except poor and every education level except less than high school were

significantly less likely to have health insurance than Whites.

u Among people with a high school education, AI/ANs (58.7%) were significantly less likely than Whites

(78.7%) to have health insurance. Hispanics (62.8%) also were significantly less likely than nonHispanic Whites (81.5%) to have health insurance.

National Healthcare 145 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

<High School

Percent 

High School

Grad

Some College

White

Black AI/AN

Asian

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

>1 Race

0

Z

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

<High School High School

Grad

Some College

Healthy People 2010

Target: 100%

0

Z
u No group has yet achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 100% of people in the United States

having health insurance.

Prolonged periods of uninsurance can have a particularly serious impact on a person’s health and stability.

Uninsured people often postpone seeking care, have difficulty obtaining care when they ultimately seek it,

and may have to bear the full brunt of health care costs. Over time, the cumulative consequences of being

uninsured compound, resulting in a population at particular risk for suboptimal health care and health status.

Figure 3.4. People under age 65 who were uninsured all year, by race, ethnicity, income, and education,

2002-2006 

u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between Blacks and Whites in the percentage of uninsured people

remained the same (Figure 3.4). 

u In 2006, Asians were less likely than Whites to be uninsured (12.9% compared with 14.4%), and

AI/ANs were more likely than Whites to be uninsured (20.5% compared with 14.4%).

u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of uninsured

people remained the same. In 2006, the percentage of people uninsured all year was still almost three

times as high for Hispanics as for non-Hispanic Whites (28.6% compared with 10.8%).

u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between poor people and high-income people in the percentage of

uninsured people remained the same. In 2006, the percentage of people uninsured all year was still

about four times as high for poor people as for high-income people (23.7% compared with 5.7%).

National Healthcare 146 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

10

20

30

40

50 White

Black

Asian

NHOPI >1 Race

AI/AN

Percent

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Analyses by race, ethnicity, and income performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65. Analyses

by education performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 18-64.

Note: Beginning in 2002, survey respondents could report more than one race. Estimates for racial groups other than Whites and

Blacks are significantly affected by this change. Data for these groups are not directly comparable with earlier years and are not

shown here. Racial categories shown here exclude multiple-race individuals, who are shown as a separate group.

u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between people with less than a high school education and people with at

least some college education in the percentage of uninsured people increased. The percentage of people

uninsured all year increased for people with less than a high school education (from 30.2% to 33.3%). 

Each year, multivariate analyses are conducted in support of the NHDR to identify the independent effects of

race, ethnicity, income, and education on quality of health care. Past reports have listed some of these

findings as odds ratios. This year, the NHDR presents the results of a multivariate model as adjusted

percentages for this measure: people under age 65 who were uninsured all year. Adjusted percentages show

the expected percentage for a given subpopulation after controlling for a number of factors, which include

race/ethnicity, family income, education, health insurance status, and geographic location.

National Healthcare 147 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

High School Grad

At Least

Some College

<High School

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
Figure 3.5. Adjusted percentages of people under age 65 who were uninsured all year, by race/ethnicity,

family income, education, and residence location, 2002-2006.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, pooled

2002-2006 fiscal year files.

Note: Adjusted percentages are predicted

marginals from a statistical model that includes the

covariates race/ethnicity, family income, education,

health insurance, and residence location. Refer to

Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods, for more

information.

u In the multivariate model used, after adjustment, 15% of non-Hispanic Blacks and 27% of Hispanics

would have been uninsured all year compared with 14% of non-Hispanic Whites (Figure 3.5).

u After adjustment, 30% of poor, 28% of low-income, and 16% of middle-income individuals would have

been uninsured all year compared with only 8% of those with high income.

u After adjustment, 21% of people with less than a high school education and 18% of high school

graduates would have been uninsured all year compared with 13% of those with some college

education.

u After adjustment, 18% of people living in nonmetropolitan areas would have been uninsured all year

compared with 16% of those living in metropolitan areas.

Financial Burden of Health Care Costs

Health insurance is supposed to protect individuals from the burden of high health care costs. However, even

with health insurance, the financial burden for health care can still be high and is increasing.9 High

premiums and out-of-pocket payments can be a significant barrier to accessing necessary medical treatment

and preventive care.10 One way to assess the extent of financial burden is by determining the percentage of

family income spent on a family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses. 

National Healthcare 148 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Metropolitan

Percent

Hispanic

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Nonmetropolitan

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

0

10

20

30

40

50

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Non-Hispanic Black
Figure 3.6. People under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical

expenses were more than 10% of total family income, by race and ethnicity, family income, insurance

status, and geographic region, 2006 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; ESI = employer-sponsored insurance; NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Note: Total financial burden includes premiums and out-of-pocket costs for health care services.

National Healthcare 149 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Percent

Hispanic

Total

Non-Hispanic White

Asian 

>1 Race

0

15

30

45

60

75

White

Black

AI/AN

NHOPI

Percent

Poor

0

15

30

45

60

75

Low Income

High Income

Middle Income

Percent

Private ESI

0

15

30

45

60

75

Private Nongroup

Public Only

Percent

Total Metropolitan Areas 

0

15

30

45

60

75

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Noncore

Total Nonmetropolitan
u In 2006, the percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-ofpocket medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was lower for Blacks and Asians

than for Whites (15.7% and 12.7%, respectively, compared with 18.0%), and lower for Hispanics than

for non-Hispanic Whites (14.9% compared with 18.9%; Figure 3.6).

u The percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket

medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was about four times as high for poor

individuals (33.9%), almost three times as high for low-income individuals (23.6%), and more than

twice as high for middle-income individuals (18.8%) compared with high-income individuals (8.2%).

u The percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket

medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was more than three times as high for

individuals with private nongroup insurance as for individuals with private employer-sponsored

insurance (51.5% compared with 16.9%). There was no significant difference between publicly insured

individuals and individuals with employer-sponsored insurance.

u The percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket

medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was higher for individuals living in

nonmetropolitan areas than for those in metropolitan areas (22.9% compared with 16.5%).

u Among individuals living in metropolitan areas, individuals in medium metropolitan areas (20.0%) and

individuals in small metropolitan areas (18.5%) were more likely than individuals living in large central

metropolitan areas (14.3%) to have health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses of

more than 10% of total family income.

Usual Source of Care

People with a usual source of care (a provider or facility where one regularly receives care) experience

improved health outcomes and reduced disparities (smaller differences between groups)11 and costs.12 More

than 40 million Americans do not have a specific source of ongoing care.13

Specific Source of Ongoing Care

Evidence suggests that the effect on quality of the combination of health insurance and a usual source of care

is additive.14 In addition, people with a usual source of care are more likely to receive preventive health

services.*

*Refer, for example, to Ettner SL. The timing of preventive services for women and children: the effect of having a usual

source of care. Am J Pub Hlth 1996;86:1748-54.

National Healthcare 150 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Figure 3.7. People with a specific source of ongoing care, by race, ethnicity, income, education, and

insurance status, 1999-2007 

National Healthcare 151 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Black

Asian

>1 Race

AI/AN

Percent 

2001

2002

0

Z

1999

2000

2003

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 96%

2007

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Hispanic Non-Hispanic White

0

Z

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

20062007

Healthy People 2010

Target: 96%

1999

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

1999

0

Z

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 96%

2007

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

High School Grad

<High School Some College

1999

0

Z

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 96%

2007
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 1999-

2007.

Denominator: Analyses by race, ethnicity, and income performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population of all ages. Analyses by

education performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 25-64.

Note: Measure is age adjusted. Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.

u From 1999 to 2007, the gap in usual source of care between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites

remained the same (Figure 3.7). In 2007, the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing

care was significantly lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (77.4% compared with

88.5%).

u During this period, the gap between poor people and high-income people remained the same. In 2007,

the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing care was significantly lower for poor people

than for high-income people (79.5% compared with 92.3%).

u Also during this period, for people under age 65, the gap between uninsured people and people with

private insurance increased. In 2007, the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing care

was much lower for uninsured people than for people with private insurance (55.3% compared with

91.9%).

u Other than people age 65 and over with Medicare and private insurance, no group has achieved the

Healthy People 2010 target of 96% of people in the United States having a specific source of ongoing

care.

National Healthcare 152 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

Private Insurance <65 Uninsured <65

Public Insurance <65

1999

0

Z

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Healthy People 2010

Target: 96%

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Medicare+Private (65+)

Medicare+Public (65+)

Medicare Only (65+)

1999

2000

2001

2007

Healthy People 2010

Target: 96%
Each year, multivariate analyses are conducted in support of the NHDR to identify the independent effects of

race and SES on quality of health care. Past reports have listed some of these findings as odds ratios. This

year, the NHDR presents the results of a multivariate model as adjusted percentages for this measure: people

under age 65 with a specific source of ongoing care. Adjusted percentages show the expected percentage for

a given subpopulation after controlling for a number of factors, which include race/ethnicity, family income,

education, health insurance status, and geographic location.

Figure 3.8. Adjusted percentages of people under age 65 with a specific source of ongoing care, by

race/ethnicity, family income, insurance status, and residence location, 2005

Source: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Health

Statistics, National Health Interview Survey,

2005.

Note: Adjusted percentages are predicted

marginals from a statistical model that includes

the covariates race/ethnicity, family income,

education, health insurance, and residence

location. Refer to Chapter 1, Introduction and

Methods, for more information.

u In the multivariate model used, after adjustment, 83% of Hispanics would have had a specific source of

ongoing care compared with 87% of non-Hispanic Whites (Figure 3.8).

u After adjustment, compared with the high-income group (88%), all other income groups would have

had a lower percentage with a specific source of ongoing care (poor, 83%; low income, 85%; and

middle income, 86%).

u After adjustment, only 60% of those who were uninsured all year would have had a specific source of

ongoing care compared with 92% of those with private insurance.

u After adjustment, 88% of those living in noncore areas would have had a specific source of ongoing

care compared with 87% of those living in large fringe metropolitan areas.

National Healthcare 153 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Large Fringe Metro

Percent

Hispanic

Poor

Non-Hispanic White

Noncore

Private Insurance 

Public Insurance Only

Uninsured

50

60

70

80

90

100

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Non-Hispanic Black

0

Z
Usual Primary Care Provider

Having a usual primary care provider (a doctor or nurse from whom one regularly receives care) is associated

with patients’ greater trust in their provider15 and with good provider-patient communication. These factors

increase the likelihood that patients will receive appropriate care.16 By learning about patients’ diverse health

care needs over time, a usual primary care provider can coordinate care (e.g., visits to specialists) to better

meet patients’ needs.17 Having a usual primary care provider correlates with receipt of higher quality care.18, 19

Figure 3.9. People with a usual primary care provider, by race, ethnicity, family income, education, and

insurance status, 2002-2006

National Healthcare 154 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Total

Asian >1 Race

AI/AN

Percent

2002

0

Z

2003

2004

2005

Black

Healthy People 2010

Target: 85%

2006

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 85%

2006
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Analyses by race, ethnicity, and income performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population of all ages. Analyses by

education performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: A usual primary care provider is defined as the source of care that a person usually goes to for new health problems,

preventive health care, and referrals to other health professionals. Data are age adjusted. Data were insufficient for this analysis for

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders.

National Healthcare 155 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 85%

2006

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

High School Grad 

At Least

Some College

<High School

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 85%

2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Percent 

Uninsured (65)

Public Insurance (<65)

Private Insurance (<65)

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

Medicare+Public (65+)

Medicare+Private (65+) Medicare Only (65+)

2006
u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between Blacks and Whites remained the same. In 2006, Blacks were less

likely than Whites to have a usual primary care provider (75.4% compared with 78.7%; Figure 3.9).

u In 2006, Asians were less likely than Whites to have a usual primary care provider (64.7% compared

with 78.7%). 

u The gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites remained the same. In 2006, the percentage of

people with a usual primary care provider was significantly lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic

Whites (65.6% compared with 81.7%).

u The gap between poor people and high-income people remained the same. In 2006, the percentage of

people with a usual primary care provider was significantly lower for poor people than for high-income

people (72.3% compared with 82.2%).

u The gap between people with less than a high school education and people with at least some college

education remained the same. In 2006, the percentage of people with a usual primary care provider was

significantly lower for people with less than a high school education than for people with some college

education (67.4% compared with 75.9%).

u From 2002 to 2006, for people under age 65, the gap between uninsured people and people with private

insurance remained the same. In 2006, uninsured people were almost half as likely as people with

private insurance to have a usual primary care provider (45.4% compared with 80.6%).

u During this period, for people age 65 and over, the gap between people with Medicare only and people

with Medicare and private insurance remained the same. In 2006, people with Medicare only were less

likely than people with Medicare and private insurance to have a usual primary care provider (89.3%

compared with 92.7%).

u With the exception of people age 65 and over with Medicare insurance coverage, no group has achieved

the Healthy People 2010 target of 85% of Americans with a usual primary care provider.

Patient Perceptions of Need

Patient perceptions of need include perceived difficulties or delays in obtaining care and problems getting

care as soon as it is wanted. Although patients may not always be able to assess their need for care, problems

getting care when patients perceive that they are ill or injured likely reflect significant barriers to care.

National Healthcare 156 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Figure 3.10. People who were unable to get or delayed in getting needed medical care, dental care, 

or prescription medicines in the last 12 months, by race, ethnicity, income, education, and insurance

status, 2006

National Healthcare 157 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Percent

Total

Asian 

>1 Race

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Black

AI/AN

Percent

Non-Hispanic

White

0

5

10

15

20

25

Hispanic

Percent

Poor

0

5

10

15

20

25

High Income

Near Poor

Middle Income

Percent

<High School

0

5

10

15

20

25

High School Grad

Some College
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Analyses by race, ethnicity, income, and insurance

performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population, all ages.

Analyses by education performed for civilian noninstitutionalized

population age 18 and over.

u The percentage of people who were unable to get or delayed in getting needed medical care, dental

care, or prescription medicines was lower for Asians than for Whites (6.4% compared with 11.7%;

Figure 3.10) and higher for people of multiple race than for Whites (17.2% compared with 11.7%).

u The percentage of people who were unable to get or delayed in getting needed medical care, dental

care, or prescription medicines was lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (9.3% compared

with 12.3%).

u The percentage of people who were unable to get or delayed in getting needed medical care, dental

care, or prescription medicines was significantly higher for poor (15.4%), near-poor (14.6%), and

middle-income (12.8%) people than for high-income people (8.2%).

u For people under age 65, the percentage of people who were unable to get or delayed in getting needed

medical care, dental care, or prescription medicines was almost two times as high for people with no

health insurance as for people with private insurance (19.5% compared with 10%). The percentage was

about 11⁄2 times that of people with public insurance (19.5% compared with 13.1%).

u For people age 65 and over, the percentage of people who were unable to get or delayed in getting

needed medical care, dental care, or prescription medicines was higher for people with Medicare only

(13.1%) and people with Medicare and public insurance (14.1%) than for people with Medicare and

private insurance (8.9%; data not shown). 

Health Care Utilization

Measures of health care utilization complement patient reports of barriers to care and permit a fuller

understanding of access to care. Barriers to care that are associated with differences in health care utilization

may have a more significant impact on health care quality than other factors. Landmark reports on

National Healthcare 158 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Percent

Any Private

Insurance

0

5

10

15

20

25

Public

Insurance

Uninsured
disparities have relied on measures of health care utilization,1, 20 and these data demonstrate some of the

largest differences in care among diverse groups. More recent efforts to inform health care delivery continue

to include measures of health care utilization.21

Interpreting health care utilization data is more complex than analyzing data on patient perceptions of access

to care. Along with access to care, health care utilization is strongly affected by health care need and patient

preferences and values. In addition, greater use of services does not necessarily indicate better care. In fact,

high use of some inpatient services may reflect impaired access to outpatient services. 

Tables 3.1a and 3.1b summarize facilitators and barriers to care for various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic

groups. Tables 3.2a and 3.2b summarize findings on all core measures related to health care utilization.

Because of the many factors that affect health care utilization, the key to symbols used in Tables 3.2a and

3.2b is different from that used for Tables 3.1a and 3.1b. Rather than indicating better or worse access

compared with the comparison group, symbols on the utilization tables simply identify the amount of care

received by racial or ethnic minority and socioeconomic groups relative to their comparison groups.

In 2006, the Nation’s 14 million health services workers22 provided care at about 960 million office visits23

and 673 million hospital outpatient visits24 and treated 37 million hospitalized patients24 and 1.4 million

nursing home residents.25 Each year, about 70% of the civilian noninstitutionalized population visits a

medical provider’s office or outpatient department, about 60% receives a prescription medication, and about

40% visits a dental provider.26

National health expenditures totaled more than $2 trillion in fiscal year 2006, nearly double those of a decade

earlier.27 Health expenditures among the civilian noninstitutionalized population in America are extremely

concentrated, with 5% of the population accounting for 55% of outlays.28 In addition, a study using earlier

data estimated that as much as $420 billion a year—almost one-fourth of all health care expenditures—are

the result of low-quality care, including overuse, misuse, and waste.29

Previous NHDRs reported that different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups had different patterns of

health care utilization. Asians and Hispanics tended to have lower use of most health care services, including

routine care, emergency department visits, avoidable admissions, and mental health care. Blacks tended to

have lower use of routine care, outpatient mental health care, and outpatient HIV care. Blacks had higher use

of emergency departments and hospitals, including higher rates of avoidable admissions, inpatient mental

health care, and inpatient HIV care. Individuals with lower SES tended to have lower use of routine care and

outpatient mental health care and higher use of emergency departments, hospitals, and home heath care. 

This section highlights findings related to dental care, emergency department visits, potentially avoidable

admissions, and mental health care and substance abuse treatment.

Dental Visits

Regular dental visits promote prevention, early diagnosis, and optimal treatment of oral diseases and

conditions. Failure to visit the dentist can result in delayed diagnosis, overall compromised health, and,

occasionally, even death.14

National Healthcare 159 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Figure 3.11. People who had a dental visit in the calendar year, by race, ethnicity, income, and

insurance status, 2002-2006 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Analyses by race, ethnicity, and income performed for civilian noninstitutionalized population, all ages.

National Healthcare 160 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 White

Black

Asian

NHOPI >1 Race

AI/AN

Percent 

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%

2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%

2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%

2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

2002

2003

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%

2006

Uninsured

Public Insurance 

Private Insurance
u There were no statistically significant changes in the percentage of people with a dental visit in the

calendar year from 2002 to 2006 across racial, ethnic, or income categories (Figure 3.11).

u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between Blacks and Whites in the percentage of people with a dental visit

in the calendar year remained the same. In 2006, the percentage was significantly lower for Blacks than

for Whites (30.6% compared with 45.6%). The gap between NHOPIs and Whites was not statistically

significant.

u During the same period, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites remained the same. In

2006, the percentage was significantly lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (26.5%

compared with 49.7%).

u In 2006, the gap between poor people and high-income people remained the same. The percentage was

significantly lower for poor (26.1%), near-poor (28.8%), and middle-income people (40.8%) than for

high-income people (57.4%).

u Only NHOPIs and high-income people met the Healthy People 2010 target of 56% of people with a

dental visit in the past year.

u From 2002 to 2006, the gap between people with public insurance and people with private insurance

decreased. However, people with public insurance were still less likely than people with private

insurance to have had a dental visit in the calendar year (32.1% compared with 50.9%). 

u During this period, the gap between uninsured people and people with private insurance remained the

same. People who were uninsured were about two-thirds less likely than people with private insurance

to have had a dental visit in the calendar year (16.1% compared with 50.9%).

To distinguish the effects of race, ethnicity, and SES on health care utilization and to identify populations at

greatest risk for barriers to health care utilization, this measure is stratified by income.

National Healthcare 161 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Figure 3.12. People who had a dental visit in the calendar year, by race and ethnicity, stratified by

income, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population, all ages.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders and for American Indians and Alaska

Natives.

u SES explains some, but not all, of the racial and ethnic differences in rates of dental visits (Figure 3.12).

u In all income categories except for poor, Blacks were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a

dental visit in the calendar year (near poor, 23.5% for Blacks versus 30.1% for Whites; middle income,

32.0% for Blacks versus 42.9% for Whites; and high income, 44.1% for Blacks versus 59.2% for

Whites).

u Hispanics at every income level were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have had a

dental visit (poor, 21.6% of Hispanics versus 28.9% of non-Hispanic Whites; near poor, 23.1% of

Hispanics versus 33.6% of non-Hispanic Whites; middle income, 24.6% of Hispanics versus 46.8% of

non-Hispanic Whites; and high income, 42.6% of Hispanics versus 60.5% of non-Hispanic Whites).

Emergency Department Visits

Without good access to health care, people sometimes resort to using the emergency department (ED) when

care is needed. A high rate of ED visits may suggest that a population lacks access to preventive and routine

care and other avenues of treatment. Delaying care until the need is urgent often results in poorer health

outcomes and increased health care costs. It should be noted that high rates of ED visits, however, may also

be the result of varying levels of patient need or preferences.

National Healthcare 162 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

25

50

75

100 Percent 

White 

Black 

Poor Near

Poor

Middle

Income

High

Income

Asian

0

25

50

75

100

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

Poor Middle

Income

Near

Poor

High

Income
Figure 3.13. People who had a hospital emergency room visit in the calendar year, by race and income,

ethnicity and income, insurance and income, insurance and race, and insurance and ethnicity, 2006 

National Healthcare 163 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

Total Black

Poor Near

Poor

Middle

Income

High

Income

White Asian

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

Poor Middle

Income

Near

Poor

High

Income

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

Poor Near

Poor

Middle

Income

High

Income

Uninsured

Public Insurance 

Private Insurance

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

White Black Asian

Uninsured

Public Insurance 

Private Insurance
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population, all ages.

Note: Estimates are based on self-report of emergency room

visits. Data did not meet criteria for statistical reliability for Native

Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, poor Asians, Asians with

public insurance or no insurance, or American Indians and Alaska

Natives. 

u From 1997-1998 to 2005-2006, the percentage of ED visits remained the same except for Blacks (data

not shown). 

u In 2006, Blacks were more likely to report that they had a hospital emergency room visit than Whites

(16.4% compared with 13.3%; data not shown). Poor Blacks were also more likely than poor Whites to

report that they had a hospital emergency room visit (22.7% compared with 19.1%; Figure 3.13).

u Asians were less likely to report that they had a hospital emergency room visit than Whites (5.5%

compared with 13.3%; data not shown). Asians at every income level except poor were also less likely

than their White counterparts to report that they had a hospital emergency room visit (near poor, 8.1%

compared with 16.4%; middle income, 3.9% compared with 12.3%; high income, 5.6% compared with

11.2%).

u Hispanics were less likely to report that they had a hospital emergency room visit than Whites (12%

compared with 13.6%; data not shown). Poor and near-poor Hispanics were also less likely than their

White counterparts to report that they had a hospital emergency room visit (poor, 14.2% compared with

21.9%; near poor, 11.5% compared with 18.8%).

u Poor people were almost twice as likely as people with high income to report that they had a hospital

emergency room visit (19.6% compared with 11%). Near-poor people were also more likely to report

that they had a hospital emergency room visit than high-income people (16.4% compared with 11%).

u People with public insurance were almost twice as likely as people with private insurance to report that

they had a hospital emergency room visit (19.1% compared with 11.1%; data not shown).

u Among people with private insurance, Asians were less likely than Whites to report that they had a

hospital emergency room visit (5.7% compared with 11.1%). 

National Healthcare 164 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

Non-Hispanic

White

Hispanic

Uninsured

Public Insurance 

Private Insurance
u Among people with public insurance, Blacks were more likely than Whites to report that they had a

hospital emergency room visit (21.8% compared with 18.4%) and Hispanics were less likely than nonHispanic Whites to report a hospital emergency room visit (14.3% compared with 21.5%).

u Among people with no insurance, Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to report that

they had a hospital emergency room visit (6.9% compared with 14.6%).

Potentially Avoidable Admissions

Potentially avoidable admissions are hospitalizations that might have been averted by good outpatient care.

They relate to conditions for which good outpatient care can prevent the need for hospitalization or for which

early intervention can prevent complications or more severe disease. Although all admissions for these

conditions cannot be avoided, rates in populations tend to vary with access to primary care.30 For example,

better access to care should reduce the percentage of appendicitis admissions in which rupture has occurred.

Figure 3.14. Perforated appendixes per 1,000 admissions with appendicitis, by race/ethnicity, area

income (median income of ZIP Code of residence), and insurance status, 2001-2006 

National Healthcare 165 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

200

250

300

350

400

White

Black

2001

2003

Rate

2002

API

Hispanic

0

Z

2004

Total

2005

2006

200

250

300

350

400 Quartile 1 (lowest income)

Quartile 3

2001

2003

Rate

2002

0

Z

Quartile 2

Quartile 4 (highest income)

2004

2005

2006
Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare

Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient Databases

(SID) disparities analysis file, 2001-2006.

Denominator: Patients hospitalized with appendicitis, age 18 and

over.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic groups. Quartile

income categories are used instead of the NHDR’s usual

descriptive categories because that is how data are collected for

this measure. Quartile 1 corresponds to the lowest income

quartile, and Quartile 4 corresponds to the highest income quartile.

Income categories are based on the median household income of

the ZIP Code of the patient’s residence. The HCUP SID disparities

analysis file is designed to provide national estimates using

weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that

have 66% of the U.S. resident population. Data for American

Indians and Alaska Natives from the National Patient Information

Reporting System can be found in Chapter 4 but are not collected

by this data source.

u From 2001 to 2006, the gap between Blacks and Whites in the rate of hospital admissions for perforated

appendix did not change significantly (Figure 3.14). In 2006, Blacks had a higher rate than Whites

(323.4 per 1,000 compared with 278.7 per 1,000).

u In 2006, APIs and Whites were not significantly different in the rate of hospital admissions for

perforated appendix.

u In 2006, there was no statistically significant difference between Hispanics and Whites (283.7 per 1,000

compared with 278.7 per 1,000).

u From 2001 to 2006, the gap between people living in poor communities (Quartile 1) and those living in

high-income communities (Quartile 4) in the rate of hospital admissions for perforated appendix

increased. In 2006, people living in poor communities (Quartile 1) had a higher rate than those living

in high-income communities (312.8 per 1,000 compared with 266.1 per 1,000).

u In 2006, Medicare beneficiaries (348.3 per 1,000), Medicaid beneficiaries (307.3 per 1,000), and people

without insurance (321.3 per 1,000) had higher rates of hospital admissions for perforated appendix

than people with private insurance (270.1 per 1,000).

National Healthcare 166 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

200

250

300

350

400

2001

2003

Rate

2002

0

Z

2004

2005

2006

Medicaid

Medicare

Private Insurance

Uninsured
Mental Health Care and Substance Abuse Treatment

Mental Health Care

Although the prevalence of mental disorders for racial and ethnic minorities in the United States is similar to

that for Whites,31 minorities have less access to mental health care and are less likely to receive needed

services.32 Differences in receipt of services also may reflect, in part, variation in preferences and cultural

attitudes toward mental health.32

Figure 3.15. Adults who received mental health treatment or counseling in the last 12 months, by race,

ethnicity, and education, 2003-2007

National Healthcare 167 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Total

Asian >1 Race

AI/AN

Percent

2003

2004

2005

2007

Black

2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003-

2007.

Denominator: U.S. population age 18 and over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Native Hawaiians

and Other Pacific Islanders.

u From 2003 to 2007, the gap between Blacks and Whites increased (Figure 3.15). In 2007, Blacks were

significantly less likely than Whites to receive mental health treatment or counseling (6.8% compared

with 14.7%).

u During this period, the gap between AI/ANs and Whites remained the same. In 2007, AI/ANs were less

likely than Whites to receive mental health treatment or counseling (9.4% compared with 14.7%). 

u The gap between Asians and Whites in the percentage of people who received mental health treatment

or counseling remained the same. In 2007, the percentage of Asians was less than one-third of the

percentage of Whites (3.9% compared with 14.7%).

u The gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites increased. In 2007, the percentage of Hispanics

was less than half that of non-Hispanic Whites (7.3% compared with 16.0%).

u The gap in mental health service use between people with less than a high school education and people

with some college education remained the same. In 2007, the percentage was lower for people with

less than a high school education (12.3%) and for high school graduates (12.5%) than for people with

some college education (14.0%).

Substance Abuse Treatment

In 2006, about 17 million Americans age 12 and over acknowledged being heavy alcohol drinkers, and about

57 million acknowledged having had a recent binge drinking episode.33 About 20.4 million people age 12 and

over were illicit drug users, and about 72.9 million reported recent use of a tobacco product.33 In 2001, an

estimated $18 billion was devoted to treatment of substance use disorders. This amount constituted 1.3% of

all health care spending.34 

National Healthcare 168 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent 

High School Grad

<High School Some College

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences in substance abuse treatment31 may, in part, reflect variation in

preferences and cultural attitudes toward substance abuse.

Below is a measure of receipt of illicit drug or alcohol treatment services; it should be noted that differences

in the rates could be influenced not only by differing treatment rates but also by varying levels of prevalence.

Figure 3.16. People age 12 and over who received any treatment for illicit drug or alcohol abuse in the

last 12 months, by race, ethnicity, and education, 2003-2007

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHOPI = Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003-

2007.

Denominator: U.S. population age 12 and over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians and

NHOPIs in 2007 and NHOPIs in 2004.

National Healthcare 169 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

White

Total

Asian

NHOPI

AI/AN

Percent

2003

2004

2005

2007

Black

2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

Percent

Non-Hispanic White 

Hispanic 

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

0

1

2

3

4

5

Percent 

High School Grad

<High School Some College

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
u From 2003 to 2007, the gap between Blacks and Whites in the percentage of people age 12 and over

who received any treatment for illicit drug or alcohol abuse remained the same (Figure 3.16). In 2007,

the percentage was higher for Blacks than for Whites (2.3% compared with 1.5%).

u From 2003 to 2007, the gap between AI/ANs and Whites in the percentage of people age 12 and over

who received any treatment for illicit drug or alcohol abuse remained the same. In 2007, the percentage

was more than two times as high for AI/ANs as for Whites (3.5% compared with 1.5%).

u In 2007, the percentage was lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (1.1% compared with

1.6%).

u In 2007, the percentage was more than two times as high for people with less than a high school

education compared with people with some college education (2.6% compared with 1.0%).

National Healthcare 170 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
National Healthcare 171 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Table 3.1a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Facilitators and Barriers to Health Care 

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic

Health Insurance Coverage

People under age 65 with health 

insuranceiii = = = = 

People under age 65 who were 

uninsured all yeariv = = = = = 

Usual Source of Care 

People with a specific source of 

ongoing careiii = = = = 

People with a usual primary care 

provideriv = = = 

People without a usual source of care 

who indicated a financial or insurance 

reason for not having a source of careiv = = 

Patient Perceptions of Need 

People who were unable to get or

delayed in getting needed careiv = 

i Compared with Whites.

iiCompared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iii Source: National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

iv Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native. 

Key to Symbols Used in Access to Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group have about same access to health care.

Group has better access to health care than the comparison group.

Group has worse access to health care than the comparison group.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘‘ ‘ ‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘
National Healthcare 172 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

Table 3.1b. Socioeconomic Differences in Facilitators and Barriers to Health Care

Core Report Measure Income Educational Insurance

 Differencei

 Differenceii Differenceiii

 <100% 100-199% 200-399% <HS HS Grad Uninsured

Health Insurance Coverage 

People under age 65 with health 

insuranceiv 

People under age 65 who were 

uninsured all yearv 

 

Usual Source of Care 

People with a specific source of

ongoing careiv 

People with a usual primary care 

providerv = 

People without a usual source of care 

who indicated a financial or insurance 

reason for not having a source of careiv 

Patient Perceptions of Need 

People who were unable to get or 

delayed in getting needed carev

 

i Compared with persons with family incomes 400% of Federal poverty thresholds or above.

iiCompared with persons with any college education.

iii Compared with persons under 65 with any private health insurance.

ivSource: National Health Interview Survey, 2007.

v Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

Key: HS=High school. 

Key to Symbols Used in Access to Health Care Tables:

= Group and comparison group have about same access to health care.

Group has better access to health care than the comparison group.

Group has worse access to health care than the comparison group.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘‘

‘

‘‘

‘‘

‘

‘‘

‘‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘‘‘‘‘

‘‘‘‘‘‘

‘

‘

‘‘

‘

‘‘‘
Table 3.2a. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health Care Utilization 

Core Report Measure Racial Differencei Ethnic 

 Differenceii

 Black Asian NHOPI AI/AN >1 Race Hispanic

General Medical Care 

People who had a dental visit in the 

calendar yeariii 

Avoidable Admissions 

Perforated appendixes per 

1,000 admissions with appendicitisiv = =

Mental Health Care and Substance Abuse Treatment 

Adults who received mental health 

treatment or counseling in the last 

12 monthsv = = = =

People age 12 and over who received 

any treatment for illicit drug or alcohol 

abuse in the last 12 monthsv = = = =

i Compared with Whites.

ii Compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

iiiSource: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

iv Source: HCUP SID disparities analysis file, 2006. This source categorizes race/ethnicity very differently from other sources. Race/ethnicity information

is categorized as a single item: Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander. These contrasts compare each group with

non-Hispanic Whites. 

v Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007. 

Key: NHOPI=Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native.

Key to Symbols Used in Health Care Utilization Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same amount of health care.

Group receives more health care than the comparison group.

Group receives less health care than the comparison group.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made.

‘‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

National Healthcare 173 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Table 3.2b. Socioeconomic Differences in Health Care Utilization 

Core Report Measure Income Educational Insurance

 Differencei

 Differenceii Differenceiii

 <100% 100-199% 200-399% <HS HS Grad Uninsured

General Medical Care 

People who had a dental visit in the 

calendar yeariv 

Avoidable Admissions 

Perforated appendixes per 

1,000 admissions with appendicitisv = 

Mental Health Care and Substance Abuse Treatment

Adults who received mental health 

treatment or counseling in the last 

12 monthsv

 = =

People age 12 and over who received 

any treatment for illicit drug or alcohol 

abuse in the last 12 monthsv = =

i Compared with persons with family incomes 400% of Federal poverty threshold or above.

ii Compared with persons with any college education.

iii Compared with persons under 65 with any private health insurance.

iv Source: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

v Source: HCUP SID disparities analysis file, 2006. This source categorizes race/ethnicity very differently from other sources. Race/ethnicity 

informationis categorized as a single item: Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander. These contrasts compare each

group with non-Hispanic Whites.

vi Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2007. Insurance disparities 

were not analyzed.

Key: HS=high school.

Key to Symbols Used in Health Care Utilization Tables:

= Group and comparison group receive about same amount of health care.

Group receives more health care than the comparison group.

Group receives less health care than the comparison group.

Blank cell: Reliable estimate for group could not be made

‘‘

‘

‘‘‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

National Healthcare 174 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
National Healthcare 175 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3

References

1. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Monitoring Access to Personal Health Care Services. Access to health care in America.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1993.

2. Bierman AS, Magari ES, Jette AM, et al. Assessing access as a first step toward improving the quality of care for very old

adults. J Ambul Care Manage 1998 Jul;21(3):17-26.

3. Hadley J. Insurance coverage, medical care use, and short-term health changes following an unintentional injury or the onset

of a chronic condition. JAMA 2007 Mar 14;297(10):1073-84.

4. Institute of Medicine. Insuring America’s health: principles and recommendations. Acad Emerg Med 2004 Apr;11(4):418-22.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Self-assessed health status and selected behavioral risk factors among persons

with and without health-care coverage—United States, 1994-1995. MMWR 1998 Mar 13;47(9):176-80.

6. Jacoby M, Sullivan T, Warren E. Medical problems and bankruptcy filings. Norton’s Bankruptcy Law Advisor 2000(5).

7. Hadley J. Sicker and poorer—the consequences of being uninsured: a review of the research on the relationship between

health insurance, medical care use, health, work, and income. Med Care Res Rev 2003 Jun;60(2 Suppl):3S-75S; discussion

6S-112S.

8. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor B, Smith J. Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2006. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration. Publication No. P60-233.

Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf. Accessed on November 12, 2008.

9. Banthin JS, Bernard DM. Changes in financial burdens for health care: national estimates for the population younger than 65

years, 1996 to 2003. JAMA 2006 Dec 13;296(22):2712-9.

10. Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Meltzer DO. Patient-physician communication about out-of-pocket costs. JAMA 2003 Aug

20;290(7):953-8.

11. Starfield B, Shi L. The medical home, access to care, and insurance: a review of evidence. Pediatrics 2004 May;113(5

Suppl):1493-8.

12. De Maeseneer J, De Prins L, Gossett C, et al. Provider continuity in family medicine: does it make a difference for total health

care costs? Ann Fam Med 2003(1):144-8.

13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office; 2000. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/tableofcontents.htm.

14. Phillips RL, Proser M, Green LA, et al. The importance of having health insurance and a usual source of care. Washington,

DC: The Robert Graham Center; 2004. Available at: http://www.grahamcenter.org/online/graham/home/publications/onepagers/2004/op29-importance-insurance.html. Accessed on November 11,

2008.

15. Mainous AG 3rd, Baker R, Love MM, et al. Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the

United States and the United Kingdom. Fam Med 2001 Jan;33(1):22-27.

16. Starfield B. Primary care: balancing health needs, services and technology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

17. Forrest CB, Starfield B. The effect of first-contact care with primary care clinicians on ambulatory health care expenditures. J

Fam Pract 1996 Jul;43(1):40-48.

18. Parchman ML, Burge SK. Continuity and quality of care in type 2 diabetes: a Residency Research Network of South Texas

study. J Fam Pract 2002 Jul;51(7):619-24.

19. Inkelas M, Schuster MA, Olson LM, et al. Continuity of primary care clinician in early childhood. Pediatrics 2004 Jun;113(6

Suppl):1917-25.

20. Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services; 1985. Available at: http://www.omhrc.gov/assets/pdf/checked/ANDERSON.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2008.
21. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Guidance for Designing a National Healthcare Disparities Report. Guidance for

designing a national healthcare disparities report. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.

22. Table 105: Persons employed in health service sites, by site and sex: United States, 2000-2006. Hyattsville, MD: National

Center for Health Statistics; 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf. Accessed on November 11,

2008.

23. Table 92: Visits to physician offices, hospital outpatient departments, and hospital emergency departments, by selected

characteristics: United States, selected years 1995-2005. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2007.

Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

24. Table 103: Hospital admissions, average length of stay, outpatient visits, and outpatient surgery by type of ownership and size

of hospital: United States, selected years 1975-2005. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2007. Available

at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

25. Table 117: Nursing homes, beds, occupancy, and residents, by geographic division and state: selected years 1995-2006.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf.

Accessed on November 11, 2008.

26. Krauss N, Machlin S, Kass B. Use of health care services, 1996. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and

Research; 1999.

27. Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. National health expenditures aggregate, per capita amounts, percent

distribution, and average annual percent growth, by source of funds: selected calendar years 1960-2008: Baltimore, MD:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf. Accessed on February 25, 2009.

28. Berk ML, Monheit AC. The concentration of health care expenditures, revisited. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001 MarApr;20(2):9-18.

29. Reducing the costs of poor-quality health care through responsible purchasing leadership. Chicago, IL: Midwest Business

Group on Health; 2003. Available at: http://www.mbgh.org/templates/UserFiles/Files/COPQ/copq%202nd%20printing.pdf.

Accessed on November 11, 2008.

30. Oster A, Bindman AB. Emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: insights into preventable

hospitalizations. Med Care 2003 Feb;41(2):198-207.

31. Office of Applied Studies. The NSDUH report: co-occurring major depressive episode and alcohol use disorder among adults.

Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2007. Available at:

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/alcDual/alcDual.cfm. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

32. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. Mental health: culture,

race, and ethnicity—a supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General; 2001. Available at:

http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/SMA-01-3613/sma-01-3613.pdf. Accessed on November 3, 2008.

33. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and

Health: National Findings. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies; 2008. No. 08-4343. NSDUH Series H-34. Available

at: www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k7nsduh/2k7results.pdf. Accessed on April 6, 2009.

34. Mark T, Coffey RM, McKusick D, et al. National expenditures for mental health services and substance abuse treatment, 1991-

2001. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2005. DHHS Publication 

No. SMA 05-3999.

National Healthcare 176 Disparities Report, 2009

Access to Health Care

Chapter 3
Chapter 4. Priority Populations

To examine the issue of disparities in health care, Congress directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality (AHRQ) to produce an annual report to track “prevailing disparities in health care delivery as it

relates to racial factors and socioeconomic factors in priority populations.” Although the emphasis is on

disparities related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, this directive includes a charge to examine

disparities in “priority populations,” which are groups with unique health care needs or issues that require

special attention.

This chapter of the National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR) addresses the congressional directive on

priority populations.i Chapters 2 and 3 of this report examine racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences

in quality of health care and access to health care in the general U.S. population. This chapter focuses on

differences within and across priority populations. For example, comparisons are made between Black and

White women and between children from low- and high-income families. 

The approach taken in this chapter may help policymakers understand the impact of racial, ethnic, and

socioeconomic differences on specific populations and target quality improvement programs toward groups

in greatest need. Appendix D includes detailed tables that allow examination of racial, ethnic, and

socioeconomic disparities both in the general population and across priority populations for most measures.

AHRQ’s Priority Populations

AHRQ’s priority populations, specified by Congress in the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999

(Public Law 106-129), are:

u Racial and ethnic minority groups.ii

u Low-income groups.iii

u Women.

u Children (under age 18).

u Older adults (age 65 and over).

u Residents of rural areas.iv

i The congressional mandate for the NHDR also identifies populations living in inner-city areas as a priority population.

However, no data are available to support findings for this population.

ii Racial categories include White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native,

and more than one race. Ethnic categories are Hispanic or Latino, non-Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black.

iii In the NHDR, “low income” refers to poor people. Thresholds for income categories—poor, near poor, middle income, and

high income—vary by family size and composition and are updated annually by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. For example,

in 2008 the Federal poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children was $21,834.

iv Rural areas can be defined differently depending on the data source. The NHDR uses Office of Management and Budget

revised definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Noncore areas are rural areas. Data for metropolitan

and micropolitan areas are used for comparisons with noncore areas.

National Healthcare 177 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
u Individuals with special health care needs,v including individuals with disabilities and individuals who

need chronic care or end-of-life care.

How This Chapter Is Organized

This chapter provides the most recent information available on racial, ethnic, and income differences in

quality and access for priority populations. It is presented in the following order:

u Racial and ethnic minorities.

u Low-income groups.

u Women.

u Children.

u Older adults.

u Residents of rural areas.

u Individuals with disabilities or special health care needs.

To avoid repeating the previous chapters’ findings on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, the first two

sections summarize quality of and access to health care for racial and ethnic minorities and low-income

groups. Subsequent sections focus on the remaining priority populations and examine disparities in care

within each population group and changes in disparities over time. To present this greater detail, some

sections highlight a small number of measures that supplement the core measures presented in Chapters 2

and 3. While these measures may not necessarily be the core measures presented each year, they add detail

to the picture of disparities that each population may face. Interagency Work Group members and AHRQ

experts on particular populations assisted in selecting measures for these priority populations. 

For smaller priority populations, measure selection was often driven by available sample sizes. When

possible, measures were selected to encompass multiple components of health care need, such as preventive

services, treatment of acute illness, management of chronic disease, and access to health care. Results for all

measures are found in the detailed appendix tables.

v Individuals with special health care needs include children who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical,

developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount

beyond that required by children generally.

National Healthcare 178 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
The measures discussed in this chapter are as follows:

Section Measure

Blacks or African Americans

Asians

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders Cholesterol screening

Colorectal cancer screening

Pneumonia admissions

Medical costs 

American Indians and Alaska Natives

Hispanics or Latinos

Recent Immigrants and Limited-English- Tuberculosis therapy

Proficient Populations Poor communication with health providers

Uninsurance

Language assistance

Low-Income Groups

Women Adults with obesity given advice about healthy eating

Heart attack mortality

New AIDS cases

Usual source of care

Birth trauma

Children Early childhood vaccinations

Counseling to parents about healthy eating

Dental visits in the past year

Accidental puncture or laceration during procedure

Hospital admissions with perforated appendix

Health insurance

Older Adults Influenza vaccination

Vision screening

Delayed care due to cost

Residents of Rural Areas Heart attack mortality

Recommended services for diabetes

Care for illness or injury as soon as wanted

Uninsurance

Individuals With Disabilities or Special Adults with disabilities

Health Care Needs Delayed dental care, dental visits

Underinsurance, financial burden of health care costs

National Healthcare 179 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
It should be noted that this chapter does not provide a comprehensive assessment of health care differences in

each priority population. Most of the measures tracked in the NHDR were selected to be applicable across

many population groups. Only a few, such as immunizations among children, were specific to particular

groups. 

These general measures overlook some important health care problems specific to particular populations.

For example, people with disabilities may face barriers in getting access to care and experience differences in

quality of care that are not captured by data because of the limitations in the survey instruments. In addition,

national data may not address key health issues for specific population groups. It is not always possible to

generate reliable estimates for many smaller groups, such as Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

(NHOPIs) and American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). Instead, this chapter should be seen as a

starting point, identifying some problem areas and indicating gaps in current data and understanding.

Racial and Ethnic Minorities

In 2000, about 33% of the U.S. population identified themselves as members of racial or ethnic minority

groups.1 By 2050, it is projected that these groups will account for almost half of the U.S. population. For

2007, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the United States had almost 38.8 million Blacks or African

Americans2 (12.9% of the U.S. population)3

; more than 45.5 million Hispanics or Latinos (15.1%)2; almost

13.4 million Asians (4.4%); more than 0.5 million NHOPIs (0.2%); and more than 2.9 million AI/ANs

(1.0%), of whom 57% reside on Federal trust lands.4 Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than nonHispanic Whites to be poor or near poor.5 In addition, Hispanics, Blacks, and some Asian subgroups are less

likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have a high school education.6

Previous chapters of the NHDR described health care differences by racialvi and ethnicvii categories as defined

by the Office of Management and Budget and used by the U.S. Census Bureau.7 In this section, quality of

and access to health care for each minority group are summarized to the extent that statistically reliable data

are available for each group.viii Criteria for importance are that the difference is statistically significant at the

alpha = 0.05 level (two-tailed test) and that the relative difference from the reference group is at least 10%

when framed positively as a favorable outcome or negatively as an adverse outcome. Access measures focus

on facilitators and barriers to health care and exclude health care utilization measures.

vi Races include Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska

Native, White, and people of multiple races.

vii Ethnicity differentiates Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Among non-Hispanics, this report identifies non-Hispanic Whites and

non-Hispanic Blacks.

viii Data are presented for each minority group except for people of multiple races due to unreliable estimates for this group.

National Healthcare 180 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
Changes Over Time

This section also examines changes in differences related to race and ethnicity over time. For each core

report measure, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups are compared with a designated comparison group.

The time periods range from 2000-2002 to 2005-2007, depending on data source. Consistent with Healthy

People 2010, disparities are measured in relative terms as the percentage difference between each group and

a comparison group. Changes in disparity are measured by subtracting the percentage difference from the

comparison group at the baseline year from the percentage difference from the comparison group at the most

recent year. The change in each disparity is then divided by the number of years between the baseline and

most recent estimate to calculate change in disparity per year. 

Core report measures (refer to Table 1.2) for which the relative differences are changing less than 1% per

year are identified as staying the same. Core report measures for which the relative differences are becoming

smaller at a rate of 1% or more per year are identified as improving. Core report measures for which the

relative differences are becoming larger at a rate of 1% or more per year are identified as worsening.

Changes of greater than 5% per year are also differentiated from changes of between 1% and 5% per year in

some figures.

Gaps in Information

As in previous NHDRs, this section includes information on programs and issues that may affect racial and

ethnic disparities. The assessment of disparities AI/ANs face includes information on the approximately 1.5

million individuals who obtain care from Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities and Tribal facilities that

receive IHS funding.

In interpreting findings for racial and ethnic minorities, readers should note that considerable gaps exist in

information for some racial and ethnic minorities and limit the NHDR’s ability to identify the current state of

disparities for some groups. Gaps can relate to insufficient data to produce reliable estimates or, when

estimates are possible, to inadequate power to detect large differences. For example, of core report measures

of quality, it is rarely possible to provide estimates for NHOPIs and people of more than one race. For

Asians, only about two-thirds of core report measures of quality support analyses. For AI/ANs, only about

half of these same measures support analyses. 

In addition, many data sources changed racial classifications for Asians and NHOPIs in 2003 to adhere to

new Federal standards. This change has further constrained the ability to perform trend analyses for these

groups. Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods, and the summary section at the end of this report present

more detailed descriptions of current data limitations and ways data are gradually improving.

For all groups, opportunities exist to improve health care quality and access. A summary of the measures that

identify opportunities for improvement is presented below. 

National Healthcare 181 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
Table 4.1. Percentage of core quality and access measures that are not improving for various racial and

ethnic groups 

Group Reference group Percentage of core measures not improving 

(n = number of measures that could be tracked)

Quality of care Access to care

Black White 71 (n = 38) 50 (n = 10)

Asian White 85 (n = 27) 60 (n = 10)

AI/AN White 57 (n = 19) 71 (n = 7)

Hispanic Non-Hispanic White 68 (n = 37) 50 (n = 10)

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Note: “Not improving” is defined for quality measures as a population that received about the same or worse quality of care as

Whites or non-Hispanic Whites and for access measures, as a population that had about the same or worse access to care as Whites

or non-Hispanic Whites. Percentages are based on a subset of core measures that have data for these groups. Some data sources

do not collect data for these groups or do not have statistically reliable data to report for these groups. Some measures include data

for all ages and some are age-group specific. Refer to the Measure Specifications and Data Tables appendixes for more information.

Baseline year and most recent year are not the same for all measures, depending on the data source.

For each racial or ethnic group, Table 4.2 highlights the core measures with gaps that are increasing (i.e.,

getting worse) for the group compared with its reference group. 

Table 4.2. Core measures that are getting worse for group compared with reference group 

Topic Measure Name Blacks Asians American Hispanics Poor

Indians/ People

Alaska 

Natives

Preventive Adults age 50 and over who 

services received a colorectal cancer 

screening * * * **

Adults age 65 and over who 

ever received pneumococcal 

vaccination * *

Adults with obesity who 

received advice about exercise * *

Children ages 2-17 who 

received advice about exercise *

Children ages 2-17 who 

received advice about 

healthy eating * *

Children ages 19-35 months 

who received all 

recommended vaccines * *

National Healthcare 182 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
Table 4.2. Core measures that are getting worse for group compared with reference group 

Topic Measure Name Blacks Asians American Hispanics Poor

Indians/ People

Alaska 

Natives

Acute illness Hospital patients with heart 

treatment failure who received 

recommended care ** *

Hospital patients with heart 

attack who received 

recommended care *

Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received 

recommended care ** *

Chronic Adults with diabetes who had 

disease three major exams in the 

management past year * * *

Adults with past year major 

depressive episode who 

received treatment for the 

depression in the past year *

People age 12 and over who 

needed treatment for any illicit 

drug use or alcohol problem 

who received such treatment * * *

Tuberculosis patients who 

complete a curative course 

of treatment *

Long-stay nursing home 

residents who were physically 

restrained *

Home health care patients 

who get better at walking or 

moving around *

Home health care patients who 

were admitted to the 

hospital *

Adults age 65 and over who 

received potentially 

inappropriate prescription 

medications *

National Healthcare 183 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
Table 4.2. Core measures that are getting worse for group compared with reference group 

Topic Measure Name Blacks Asians American Hispanics Poor

Indians/

Alaska 

Natives

Outcome Breast cancer diagnosed at 

advanced stage *

Colorectal cancer diagnosed at 

advanced stage *

Colorectal cancer mortality * *

Breast cancer mortality *

Adult hemodialysis patients 

with adequate dialysis ** *

Deaths per 1,000 adults 

hospitalized with heart attack * *

Patient safety Appropriate timing of antibiotics 

received by adult Medicare 

patients having surgery *

Adults age 65 and over who 

received potentially inappropriate 

prescription medications *

Timeliness Adults who can sometimes or 

never get care for illness or 

injury as soon as wanted *

Patient Patient-provider 

centeredness communication—adults *

Patient-provider 

communication—children *

Access People who were unable to get 

or delayed in getting needed 

medical care, dental care, or 

prescription medications * **

People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care *

People under age 65 with 

health insurance *

People who have a usual 

primary care provider *

People without a usual source 

of care due to a financial or 

insurance reason * *

Note: “Asian” includes “Asian or Pacific Islander” when information is not collected separately for each group. The time period for

this table is the most recent and oldest years of data used in the NHDR. Measures with the highest annual percentage change in the

direction of “getting worse” are shown here. Measures with no change are not included here. A blank cell indicates that no disparity in

quality of care was getting worse for the group, which could reflect lack of data or small sample sizes for some populations.

National Healthcare 184 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
Blacks or African Americans

Previous NHDRs showed that Blacks had poorer quality of care and worse access to care than Whites for

many measures tracked in the reports. Findings based on core report measures (Table 1.2) of quality and

access to health care are shown below.

Figure 4.1. Blacks compared with Whites on core measures of quality and access

Better = Blacks receive better quality of care or have better

access to care than Whites.

Same = Blacks and Whites receive about the same quality of care

or access to care.

Worse = Blacks receive poorer quality of care or have worse

access to care than Whites.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

Table 4.3. Blacks compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures 

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Cancer Colorectal cancer diagnosed Women age 40 and over who

at advanced stage reported they had a mammogram 

Adults age 50 and over who within the past 2 years

report they ever received a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy,

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Colorectal cancer deaths 

per 100,000 population 

Breast cancer diagnosed at 

advanced stage

Cancer deaths per 100,000 

female population due to breast cancer

National Healthcare 185 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Blacks or African Americans

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(40 CRM)

Better

Same

Worse

2

15

4

1

Access

(6 CRM)

21

4

1
Table 4.3. Blacks compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures 

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Diabetes Adults with diabetes who had three 

major exams in the past year

End stage Hemodialysis patients with urea 

renal disease reduction ratio 65% or higher

Dialysis patients registered on the 

waiting list for transplantation

Heart disease Deaths per 1,000 

admissions with acute 

myocardial infarction as 

principal diagnosis, age 

18 and over

Hospital patients who Hospital patients who received

received recommended recommended care for heart

care for heart failure attack

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 

100,000 population age 13 

and over

Maternal and Children ages 2-17 given advice

child health about exercise

Children ages 2-17 who had Children ages 2-17 given advice 

a dental visit about healthy eating

Children ages 19-35 months Children ages 3-6 with a vision

who received all check

recommended vaccines

Mental health Suicide deaths per 100,000 Adults age 18 and over with People age 12 and over who

and substance population past year major depressive needed treatment for any illicit

abuse episode who received drug use or alcohol problem and

treatment for the depression who received such treatment in

in the past year the past year

Respiratory Adults age 65 and over who Tuberculosis patients who 

diseases ever received pneumococcal completed a curative course of

vaccination treatment within 1 year of initiation 

of treatment

Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received 

recommended care

Lifestyle Current smokers age 18 and over 

modification given advice to quit smoking

Adults with obesity given advice 

about exercise

National Healthcare 186 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Blacks or African Americans
Table 4.3. Blacks compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures 

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Functional Female Medicare Home health care patients whose 

status beneficiaries age 65 and ability to walk or move around 

preservation over who reported ever improved

and being screened for 

rehabilitation osteoporosis

Supportive and Long-stay nursing home High-risk long-stay nursing

palliative care residents who were home residents with 

physically restrained pressure sores

Short-stay nursing home 

residents with pressure

sores

Home health care patients 

who were admitted to the 

hospital

Patient safety Appropriate timing of antibiotics 

received by adult Medicare 

patients having surgery

Postoperative complications

Failure to rescue

Central venous catheter-associated 

adverse events

Adults age 65 and over who 

received potentially inappropriate 

prescription medications 

Timeliness Emergency department Adults who can sometimes or 

visits in which patients left never get care for illness or injury

without being seen as soon as wanted

Patient Poor provider-patient 

centeredness communication—children

Poor provider-patient 

communication—adults

Access People without a usual People who have a usual People under age 65 with health

source of care due to a primary care provider insurance

financial or insurance reason

People under age 65 uninsured all 

year

People who have a specific source 

of ongoing care

People who were unable to get or 

delayed in getting needed medical 

care, dental care, or prescription 

medications

National Healthcare 187 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Blacks or African Americans
Figure 4.2. Change in Black-White disparities over time 

Improving >5% = Black-White difference becoming smaller at an

average annual rate greater than 5%.

Improving 1-5% = Black-White difference becoming smaller at an

average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Same = Black-White difference not changing.

Worsening 1-5% = Black-White difference becoming larger at an

average annual rate between 1% and 5% per year.

Worsening >5% = Black-White difference becoming larger at an

average annual rate greater than 5%.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: The time period for this figure is the most recent and oldest

years of data used in the NHDR. Only 46 core report measures

could be tracked over time for Blacks.

Table 4.4. Change in Black-White disparities over time: Specific measures 

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Cancer Adults age 50 and over who Women age 40 and over who 

report they ever received a reported they had a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, mammogram within the past

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 2 years

blood test

Colorectal cancer deaths Colorectal cancer diagnosed at

per 100,000 population per advanced stage

year

Breast cancer diagnosed at 

advanced stage

Breast cancer deaths per 

100,000 female population

Diabetes Adults with diabetes who 

had three major exams in 

the past year

End stage Hemodialysis patients with urea Dialysis patients registered on 

renal reduction ratio 65% or higher the waiting list for 

disease transplantation

Heart Hospital patients who received Deaths per 1,000 admissions Hospital patients who received 

disease recommended care for heart with acute myocardial recommended care for heart 

attack infarction as principal failure

diagnosis, age 18 and over

National Healthcare 188 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Blacks or African Americans

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(40 CRM)

Improving >5%

Worsening 1-5%

17

10

Access

(6 CRM)

Same

Worsening >5%

Improving 1-5%

4

7

2

1

2

1

4
Table 4.4. Change in Black-White disparities over time: Specific measures 

Topic Improving Worsening Same

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and over

Maternal and Children ages 19-35 months who Children ages 2-17 given advice

child health received all recommended about exercise

vaccines

Children ages 3-6 with a vision Children ages 2-17 given 

check advice about healthy eating

Children ages 2-17 who had a 

dental visit

Mental health Adults age 18 and over with Suicide deaths per 100,000

and substance past-year major depressive population

abuse episode who received 

treatment for the depression 

in the past year

People age 12 and over who

needed treatment for any 

illicit drug use or alcohol 

problem who received such 

treatment in the past year

Respiratory Adults age 65 and over who Hospital patients with Tuberculosis patients who 

diseases ever received pneumococcal pneumonia who received completed a curative course of

vaccination recommended care treatment within 1 year of 

initiation of treatment

Lifestyle Current smokers age 18 and 

modification over given advice to quit 

smoking

Adults with obesity given 

advice about exercise

Functional Home health care patients 

status whose ability to walk or 

preservation move around improved

and 

rehabilitation

Supportive Short-stay nursing home Long-stay nursing home 

and palliative residents with pressure sores residents who were physically 

care restrained

High-risk long-stay nursing home 

residents with pressure sores

Home health care patients who 

were admitted to the hospital

National Healthcare 189 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Blacks or African Americans
Table 4.4. Change in Black-White disparities over time: Specific measures 

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Patient Postoperative complications Adults age 65 and over who Failure to rescue

safety received potentially 

inappropriate prescription 

medications 

Central venous catheter- Appropriate timing of

associated adverse events antibiotics received by 

adult Medicare patients 

having surgery

Timeliness Emergency department visits 

in which patients left without 

being seen

Adults who can sometimes or 

never get care for illness or 

injury as soon as wanted

Patient Poor provider-patient 

centeredness communication—children

Poor provider-patient 

communication—adults

Access People under age 65 with People without a usual People under age 65 uninsured 

health insurance source of care due to a all year

financial or insurance People who have a specific 

reason source of ongoing care

People who have a usual 

primary care provider

People who were unable to get 

or delayed in getting needed 

medical care, dental care, or 

prescription medications

Note: Measures in bold indicate improvement or worsening at a rate of greater than 5% per year.

National Healthcare 190 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Blacks or African Americans
Asians

Previous NHDRs showed that Asians had similar or better quality of care than Whites but worse access to

care than Whites for many measures that the report tracks. Findings based on core report measures of

quality and access to health care that support estimates for either Asians or Asians and Pacific Islanders

(APIs) in aggregate are shown below.

Figure 4.3. Asians compared with Whites on measures of quality and access

Better = Asians receive better quality of care or have better

access to care than Whites.

Same = Asians and Whites receive about the same quality of care

or access to care.

Worse = Asians receive poorer quality of care or have worse

access to care than Whites.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: Data presented are the most recent available. 

Table 4.5. Asians compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Cancer Colorectal cancer diagnosed Adults age 50 and over who

at advanced stage report they ever received a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy,

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Breast cancer diagnosed at 

advanced stage

Colorectal cancer deaths Women age 40 and over

per 100,000 population who reported they had a

per year mammogram within the 

past 2 years

Breast cancer deaths per 

100,000 female population 

per year

National Healthcare 191 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent 

Quality

(31 CRM)

Same

Worse

12

4

10

1

9

Better

Access

(6 CRM)

1
Table 4.5. Asians compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

End stage renal Hemodialysis patients with 

disease urea reduction ratio 65% 

or higher

Dialysis patients registered 

on a waiting list for 

transplantation

Heart disease Deaths per 1,000 admissions Hospital patients who 

with acute myocardial received recommended care 

infarction as principal for heart failure

diagnosis, age 18 and over

Hospital patients who 

received recommended 

care for heart attack

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 

100,000 population age 

13 and over

Maternal and child Children ages 2-17 given 

health advice about exercise

Children ages 2-17 given 

advice about healthy eating

Children ages 19-35 months 

who received all 

recommended vaccines

Children ages 2-17 who 

had a dental visit

Mental health and Suicide deaths per 100,000 

substance abuse population

Respiratory diseases Adults age 65 and over Tuberculosis patients who

who ever received completed a curative

pneumococcal vaccination course of treatment within 1

year of initiation of treatment

Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received 

recommended care

Functional status Home health care patients 

preservation and whose ability to walk or 

rehabilitation move around improved

Female Medicare 

beneficiaries age 65 and 

over who reported ever 

being screened for 

osteoporosis

National Healthcare 192 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians
Table 4.5. Asians compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Supportive and Home health care patients Long-stay nursing home High-risk long-stay

palliative care who were admitted to residents who were physically nursing home residents

the hospital restrained with pressure sores

Short-stay nursing home 

residents with pressure 

sores

Patient safety Appropriate timing of 

antibiotics received by adult 

Medicare patients having 

surgery

Failure to rescue

Timeliness Emergency department 

visits in which patients left 

without being seen

Adults who can sometimes 

or never get care for illness 

or injury as soon as wanted

Patient Poor provider-patient Poor provider-patient 

centeredness communication—adults communication—children

Access People who were unable to People who have a usual People under age 65 with

get or delayed in getting primary care provider health insurance

needed medical care, People under age 65 

dental care, or prescription uninsured all year

medications People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care

People without a usual 

source of care due to a 

financial or insurance 

reason

National Healthcare 193 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians
Figure 4.4. Change in Asian-White disparities over time

Improving >5% = Asian-White difference becoming smaller at an

average annual rate greater than 5%.

Improving 1-5% = Asian-White difference becoming smaller at an

average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Same = Asian-White difference not changing.

Worsening 1-5% = Asian-White difference becoming larger at an

average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Worsening >5% = Asian-White difference becoming larger at an

average annual rate greater than 5%.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: The time period for this figure is the most recent and oldest

years of data used in the NHDR. Only 36 core report measures

could be tracked over time for Asians and Whites.

Table 4.6. Change in Asian-White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Cancer Women age 40 and over who Colorectal cancer diagnosed Colorectal cancer deaths

reported they had a at advanced stage per 100,000 population per

mammogram within the past year

2 years

Breast cancer diagnosed at Adults age 50 and over who

advanced stage report they ever received a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, 

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Breast cancer deaths per 

100,000 female population

per year

End stage Hemodialysis patients with urea Dialysis patients registered 

renal disease reduction ratio 65% or greater on a waiting list for

transplantation

Heart disease Deaths per 1,000 admissions Hospital patients with heart 

with acute myocardial infarction attack who received 

as principal diagnosis, age recommended hospital care

18 and over 

Hospital patients with heart 

failure who received 

recommended hospital care

National Healthcare 194 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(30 CRM)

Improving >5%

Worsening 1-5%

9

Access

(6 CRM)

Same

Worsening >5%

Improving 1-5%

14

4

6

9 2

1
Table 4.6. Change in Asian-White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and over

Maternal and Children ages 19-35 months Children ages 2-17 who had

child health who received all recommended a dental visit

vaccines

Children ages 2-17 given Children ages 2-17 given 

advice about healthy eating advice about exercise

Mental health Suicide deaths per 100,000 

and substance population

abuse

Respiratory Adults age 65 and over who Tuberculosis patients who 

diseases ever received pneumococcal completed a curative course

vaccination of treatment within 1 year 

of initiation of treatment

Hospital patients with Home health care patients 

pneumonia who received whose ability to walk or

recommended care move around improved

Supportive and Long-stay nursing home Short-stay nursing home 

palliative care residents who were physically residents who have 

restrained pressure sores

High-risk long-stay nursing

home residents who have

pressure sores

Home health care patients 

who were admitted to the 

hospital

Patient safety Failure to rescue

Timeliness Adults who can sometimes Appropriate timing of 

or never get care for illness or antibiotics received by adult

injury as soon as wanted Medicare patients having 

surgery

Patient Poor provider-patient Poor provider-patient

centeredness communication—children communication—adults

Access People under age 65 People who have a usual

uninsured all year primary care provider

People under age 65 with People without a usual source

health insurance of care due to a financial or

insurance reason

People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care

People who were unable to get 

or delayed in getting needed 

medical care, dental care, or 

prescription medications

Note: Measures in bold indicate improvement or worsening at a rate of greater than 5% per year.

National Healthcare 195 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians
Focus on Asian Subpopulations

The Asian population in the United States is highly heterogeneous. The term “Asian” refers to people who

identify their country of origin as being located in East Asia, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent.

These include people from Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands,

Thailand, and Vietnam.8 In 2008, Asians represented an estimated 4.5% of the U.S. population, or 13.5

million people.9 According to 2000 census data, approximately 23% of Asians identified themselves as

Chinese, 20% Filipino, 16% Asian Indian, 10% Korean, and 9.7% Japanese.8

Research has shown that within-category variation (that is, variation between Asian subpopulations) is

sometimes as large as the differences between Asians and Whites.10, 11 To show differences within racial

groups, this year’s NHDR includes information from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) on

Asian subpopulations in California. The geographic distribution of Asian subpopulations allows for such

comparisons in California using CHIS data. 

In 2008, an estimated 4.6 million people, or about 34% of the Asian population in the United States, lived in

California.9 The proportion of many Asian subpopulations residing in California is also greater than the

proportion in the overall U.S. population. For example, the Vietnamese population is 1.3% of California’s

population compared with only 0.4% of the U.S. population, and the Filipino population is 2.7% of

California’s population compared with only 0.7% of the U.S. population. This finding is especially

important when examining data for these relatively smaller groups, as most national data sources do not have

sufficient data to report estimates for these groups. Selected CHIS measures are presented here, including

colorectal cancer screening, influenza vaccinations, uninsurance, and provider-patient communication. 

The data show that disparities for Asians exist, not only in comparison with Whites but also between Asian

subgroups (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and South Asian) and across Asian subgroups

by income and insurance status. Differences in English proficiency and place of birth are also significant.

The following section shows only some of the significant disparities for these groups in California from

CHIS data. The selected measures in this section are limited to a subset of measures available to supplement

the existing national measures used in the report. 

National Healthcare 196 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians
Figure 4.5. Adults age 50 and over who received a sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood

test in the past 5 years, by race, Asian subgroup, and income; by insurance status; by Asian subgroup,

stratified by education; by English proficiency; and by place of birth, California only, 2007

National Healthcare 197 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

Percent 

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Asian

Chinese

Filipino

Japanese

Korean

Vietnamese

South Asian

0

25

50

75

100 Total 

Poor

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Percent 

0

25

50

75

100

Asian With 

Private Insurance

Asian With 

Public Insurance

Asian Without

Insurance

Percent

Japanese

Korean

South Asian

0

25

50

75

100

Chinese

Filipino

Total Asian

<High School 

High School Grad

At Least

Some College

Vietnamese

Percent 

0

25

50

75

100

English Only

Well/Very Well

Not Well/Not At All
Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy

Research, California Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 50 and over in

California. 

Note: Data were statistically unreliable for poor Japanese, middle-income

Vietnamese, poor, low-income, and middle-income South Asians, Filipino and

Japanese with less than a high school education, and South Asians with less

than a high school education and high school graduates.

u The percentage of adults age 50 and over who had colorectal cancer screening within the past 5 years

was lower overall for Asians compared with non-Hispanic Whites in California (60.6% compared with

69.2%; Figure 4.5). This percentage was also lower for Chinese people (58.8%), Koreans (54.0%), and

Vietnamese people (55.0%) compared with non-Hispanic Whites (69.2%). 

u Among Asians, the percentage was lower for people with public insurance and people without

insurance compared with people with private insurance (46.1% and 32.4%, respectively, compared with

63.7%).

u Among Asians, the percentage was lower for poor people and low-income people compared with highincome people (51.3% and 48.7%, respectively, compared with 68.0%). There were no statistically

significant differences by racial subgroups within each income group.

u Among Asians, the percentage was lower for people with less than a high school education and high

school graduates compared with people with at least some college education (48.7% and 52.9%,

respectively, compared with 66.3%). There were no statistically significant differences by racial

subgroups within each education group.

u Among Asians, the percentage of adults age 50 and over who had colorectal cancer screening within the

past 5 years was lower for people who did not speak English well or did not speak English at all than

for native English speakers (49.6% compared with 71.3%).

u Among Asians, the percentage of adults age 50 and over who had colorectal cancer screening within the

past 5 years was lower for people who were not born in the United States than for people who were

born in the United States (58.9% compared with 70.7%).

National Healthcare 198 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

Percent 

0

25

50

75

100

Born in U.S.

Not Born in U.S.
Figure 4.6. Adults age 65 and over who received influenza vaccination in the past year, by race, Asian

subgroup, and English proficiency, California only, 2003, 2005, and 2007

Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research, California Health Interview Survey, 2003, 2005, and

2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adults in California age 65 and over. 

Note: Data were statistically unreliable for Korean and Vietnamese groups in 2003 and for South Asians.

u In California, the percentage of adults age 65 and over who received an influenza vaccination decreased

overall (from 73.9% to 68.9%; Figure 4.6). The percentage was not significantly different from 2003 to

2007 for all groups except for adults who did not speak English well or did not speak English at all.

This group experienced a decrease (from 85.3% to 75.2%).

u There were no statistically significant differences within Asian ethnic subgroups.

National Healthcare 199 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

0

20

40

60

80

100 Non-Hispanic

White

California, 

Total Chinese

Filipino

Percent 

Asian

2003

2005

2007

Japanese

Korean

Vietnamese

0

20

40

60

80

100

Not Well/Not At All

English Only

Percent 

2003

2005

2007

Well/Very Well
Figure 4.7. People under age 65 uninsured all year, by race and Asian subgroup, California only, 2001,

2003, 2005, and 2007; by Asian subgroup, stratified by income; by English proficiency; and by place of

birth, 2007

National Healthcare 200 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

0

10

20

30

40

50

All Asians

Chinese

Filipino

2001

South Asian

Vietnamese

Percent 

2003

2005

Non-Hispanic White

California Total

Korean

2007

Percent 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Chinese

Non-Hispanic White

Total Asian

Korean

Low Income

Poor

High Income

Middle Income

Percent 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Well/Very Well

Not Well/Not At All

English Only

Percent 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Not Born in U.S.

Born in U.S.
Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research, California Health Interview Survey, 2001, 2003,

2005, and 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65 in California.

Note: Income data did not meet criteria for statistical reliability for middle-income Chinese people, Filipinos, and Japanese,

Vietnamese, and South Asian groups. No data for Japanese people met criteria for statistical reliability.

u While the overall percentage of Californians uninsured all year decreased from 2001 to 2007 (from

12.4% to 11.2%), there were no significant changes for any Asian ethnic subgroup (Figure 4.7). 

u In 2007, nearly twice as many Asian as Non-Hispanic White Californians were uninsured all year

(10.8% of Asians compared with 5.8% of Whites). Among Asian ethnic subgroups, Koreans had the

highest percentage of people uninsured all year: about five times as high as Whites (31.7% compared

with 5.8%). Vietnamese people were uninsured at a rate about twice as high as Whites (12.3%

compared with 5.8%).

u Among Asians, people with middle income experienced an increase in the percentage who were

uninsured all year (from 12.2% to 19.0%), as did people who were born in the United States (from

3.3% to 6.2%) (data not shown). 

u In 2007, among Asians, the percentage of people uninsured all year was higher for poor people

(22.3%), low-income people (20.2%), and middle-income people (19.0%) than for high-income people

(5.0%). 

u Among Asians, the percentage uninsured all year was higher for people who spoke English well or very

well (13.6%) and for people who did not speak English well or did not speak English at all (24.5%)

than for native English speakers (3.8%). 

u Among Asians, the percentage of people who were uninsured all year was higher for people who were

not born in the United States than for people who were born in the United States (13.7% compared with

6.2%).

National Healthcare 201 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians
Figure 4.8. Adults age 18 and over who reported difficulty understanding their doctor during their last

visit within the past 2 years, California only, by race, Asian subgroup, income, and insurance status, 2007

Source: University of California, Los Angeles,

Center for Health Policy Research, California

Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adults

in California age 18 and over. 

Note: Income groups are all Asian. Data did not

meet criteria for statistical reliability for Filipino,

Japanese, and Korean groups.

u Overall, Asians were more likely than Whites to have difficulty understanding their doctor (5.5%

compared with 2.6%; Figure 4.8). 

u Among Asian subgroups, Vietnamese people had a higher percentage of patients who had difficulty

understanding their doctor than Whites (23% compared with 2.6%).

u Among Asians, poor people (11.8%), low-income people (8.4%), and middle-income people (8.2%)

were more likely than high-income people (3.0%) to have difficulty understanding their doctor.

u Among Asians, those with public insurance were more likely to have difficulty understanding their

doctor than those with private insurance (13.3% compared with 3.7%).

National Healthcare 202 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

Percent 

0

5

10

15

20

25

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Asian

Chinese

Poor

Low Income

High Income

Vietnamese

Asian With Private Insurance

Asian With Public Insurance

 Asian Without Insurance

Middle Income
Figure 4.9. Adults age 18 and over who reported language as the reason they had difficulty

understanding their doctor during their last visit within the past 2 years, California only, by race, Asian

subgroup, income, and insurance status, 2007

Source: University of California, Los Angeles,

Center for Health Policy Research, California

Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adults

in California age 18 and over.

Note: Income groups are all Asian. Data did not

meet criteria for statistical reliability for Filipino,

Japanese, Korean, low-income groups, and

uninsured Asians.

u Asians had a higher percentage than non-Hispanic Whites of adults who reported language as the

reason they had difficulty understanding their doctor during the last visit (2.7% compared with 1.5%;

Figure 4.9). 

u Among Asian subgroups, Vietnamese people had a higher percentage than Whites of adults who

reported language as the reason they had difficulty understanding their doctor during the last visit (8.8%

compared with 1.5%).

u Among Asians, poor people had a higher percentage than high-income people of adults who reported

language as the reason they had difficulty understanding their doctor during the last visit (5.9%

compared with 1.6%).

u Among Asians, people with public insurance had a higher percentage than people with private

insurance of adults who reported language as the reason they had difficulty understanding their doctor

during the last visit (6.4% compared with 1.6%).

National Healthcare 203 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Asians

Percent 

0

5

10

15

20

25

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Asian

Chinese

Poor

High Income

Vietnamese

Asian With Private Insurance

Asian With Public Insurance

Middle Income
Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

The ability to assess disparities among NHOPIs for the NHDR has been a challenge for two main reasons.

First, the NHOPI racial category is relatively new to Federal data collection. Before 1997, NHOPIs were

classified as part of the Asian and Pacific Islander racial category and could not be identified separately in

most Federal data. In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget promulgated new standards for Federal

data on race and ethnicity and mandated that information about NHOPIs be collected separately from

information about Asians.7 However, these standards have not yet been incorporated into all databases.

Second, when information about this population was collected, databases often included insufficient numbers

of NHOPIs to allow reliable estimates to be made. 

Due to these challenges, in previous NHDRs estimates for the NHOPI population could be generated for

only a handful of measures. A lack of quality data on this population prevents the NHDR from detailing

disparities for this group. This year, the NHDR features data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance

System (BRFSS) to supplement the NHDR information for the NHOPI population. Preventive care and

access to care measures were selected to highlight quality of care for people who identified themselves as

NHOPI (including people of mixed race who identified primarily as NHOPI). This year, the measures

include cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, pneumonia admissions, and cost as a barrier to

medical care.

Data from BRFSS do not replace the need for continued efforts to improve data collection and statistical

methods to provide more information on health and health care of the NHOPI population. BRFSS may have

larger samples of NHOPIs due to State efforts to improve sample sizes, but it is not necessarily a

comprehensive survey of health and health care. Other surveys and data collection efforts, such as vital

statistics and hospital administrative data, include more topics but do not identify NHOPIs or have large

enough sample sizes to provide data for these populations. 

For all national data sources, the relatively small population sizes of many Pacific Islander groups can cause

these populations to be overlooked when categorized as NHOPIs. In addition, identifying individuals with

chronic conditions or other health conditions within such small populations further reduces the sample sizes

that exist. However, as data become available, this information will be included in future reports.

National Healthcare 204 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders
Preventive Care: Cholesterol Screening

In the State of Hawaii, where 54% of Native Hawaiians reside, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of

death.12 Screening for risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high blood pressure and high

cholesterol, is important in preventing disease. Cholesterol screening is shown below to highlight one aspect

of cardiovascular disease prevention for Native Hawaiians.

Figure 4.10. Adults who did NOT receive a cholesterol check in the last 5 years, Hawaii only, 2005 

and 2007

Key: NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2005 and 2007.

Note: These data are self-reported from a survey of adults in a

household.

u In 2005 and 2007, the percentage of adults who did not receive a cholesterol check in the last 5 years

was significantly higher for NHOPIs than for Whites (34.8% compared with 24.6% in 2005 and 28.7%

compared with 22.1% in 2007) (Figure 4.10).

National Healthcare 205 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

Percent 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Total White NHOPI

2007

2005
Preventive Care: Colorectal Cancer Screening

Ensuring that all populations have access to appropriate cancer screening services is a core element of

reducing cancer health disparities.13 Screening for colorectal cancer—including fecal occult blood test,

sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy—is an effective way to reduce new cases of late-stage disease and mortality

caused by this cancer. Although colorectal screening for Native Hawaiians has increased in the past 6 years,

rates have remained lower than the State average in Hawaii.14 Below are supplemental national BRFSS data

for the NHOPI population. 

Figure 4.11. Adults age 50 and over who did NOT receive a blood stool test in the past 2 years or

sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy ever, Hawaii only, 2008 

Key: NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2008.

Note: These data are self-reported from a survey of adults in a

household.

u The percentage of adults age 50 and over who did not receive colorectal cancer screening was higher

for NHOPIs than for Whites (39.3% compared with 30.4%; Figure 4.11).

National Healthcare 206 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

Percent 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Total White NHOPI
Treatment: Pneumonia

High rates of hospitalizations for pneumonia may indicate poor outpatient care and low vaccination rates.

NHOPIs have more hospital admissions for bacterial pneumonia than Whites. The problem appears to be

worse for Pacific Islanders other than Native Hawaiians.

Figure 4.12. Bacterial pneumonia admissions per 100,000 population, age 18 and over, Hawaii only, by

race and racial subgroups, 2006

Key: NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, State Inpatient

Databases, 2006, and AHRQ Quality Indicators, version 3.1. 

Note: Excludes sickle cell or hemoglobin-S conditions,

transfers from other institutions, and obstetric admissions.

Rates are adjusted by age and gender using the total U.S.

population for 2000 as the standard population. Data for

Blacks did not meet the criteria for statistical reliability, data

quality, or confidentiality. 

u In 2006, NHOPIs had a higher rate of hospital admission with bacterial pneumonia than Whites (323.4

per 100,000 population compared with 254.4 per 100,000 population; Figure 4.12).

u Other Pacific Islanders had a significantly higher rate of hospital admission with bacterial pneumonia

than Whites (1,371.4 per 100,000 population compared with 254.4 per 100,000 population).

u There were no statistically significant differences between Native Hawaiians and Whites.

National Healthcare 207 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

Rate

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

White

Asian

NHOPI

Native

Hawaiian

Other Pacific

Islander
Access to Care: Medical Costs

High premiums and out-of-pocket payments can be significant barriers to accessing needed medical

treatment and preventive care. Studies show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to face barriers

due to cost of care than other groups.15, 16 

Figure 4.13. Adults who needed to see a doctor in the past year but could not because of cost, Hawaii

only, 2007 and 2008

Key: NHOPI = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2007-2008.

Note: These data are self-reported from a survey of adults in a

household. 

u The percentage of adults who needed to see a doctor in the past year but could not because of cost was

higher for NHOPIs than for Whites in both 2007 and 2008 (Figure 4.13).

National Healthcare 208 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

Percent 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Total White NHOPI

2008

2007
American Indians and Alaska Natives

Previous NHDRs showed that AI/ANs had poorer quality of care and worse access to care than Whites for

many measures tracked in the reports. Findings based on core report measures of quality and access that

support estimates for AI/ANs are shown below.

Figure 4.14. AI/ANs compared with Whites on measures of quality and access

Better = AI/ANs receive better quality of care or have better

access to care than Whites.

Same = AI/ANs and Whites receive about the same quality of

care or access to care.

Worse = AI/ANs receive poorer quality of care or have worse

access to care than Whites.

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; CRM = core

report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

Table 4.7. AI/ANs compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Cancer Colorectal cancer diagnosed Adults age 50 and over who Women age 40 and over who 

at advanced stage report they ever received a reported they had a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, mammogram within the past

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 2 years

blood test

Breast cancer diagnosed at 

advanced stage

Colorectal cancer deaths 

per 100,000 population per 

year

Breast cancer deaths per 

100,000 female population 

per year

National Healthcare 209 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(22 CRM)

Same

Worse

8

9

1

5

Better

Access

(5 CRM)

4
Table 4.7. AI/ANs compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

End stage renal Hemodialysis patients with Dialysis patients registered

disease urea reduction ratio 65% on a waiting list for 

or higher transplantation

Heart disease Hospital patients who Hospital patients who 

received recommended care received recommended care

for heart failure for heart attack

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and over

Maternal and child Children ages 19-35 months 

health who received all 

recommended vaccines

Mental health and Suicide deaths per 100,000 

substance abuse population

Respiratory diseases Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received 

recommended care

Tuberculosis patients who 

completed a curative course 

of treatment within 1 year 

of initiation of treatment

Functional status Female Medicare beneficiaries Home health care patients 

preservation and age 65 and over who reported whose ability to walk or 

rehabilitation ever being screened for move around improved

osteoporosis

Supportive and Long-stay nursing home Short-stay nursing home

palliative care residents who were residents with pressure sores

physically restrained

High-risk long-stay nursing

home residents with 

pressure sores

Home health care patients 

who were admitted to the 

hospital

Patient safety Appropriate timing of 

antibiotics received by 

adult Medicare patients 

having surgery

National Healthcare 210 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives
Table 4.7. AI/ANs compared with Whites on measures of quality and access for most current data year:

Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Access to care People under age 65 with People who have a usual 

health insurance primary care provider

People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care

People who were unable to 

get or delayed in getting 

needed medical care, dental 

care, or prescription 

medications

People under age 65 

uninsured all year

Figure 4.15. Change in AI/AN-White disparities over time

Improving >5% = AI/AN-White difference becoming smaller at

an average annual rate greater than 5%.

Improving 1-5% = AI/AN-White difference becoming smaller at

an average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Same = AI/AN-White difference not changing.

Worsening 1-5% = AI/AN-White difference becoming larger at

an average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Worsening >5% = AI/AN-White difference becoming larger at

an average annual rate greater than 5%.

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; CRM = core

report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: The time period for this figure is the most recent and

oldest years of data used in the NHDR. Only 26 core report

measures could be tracked over time for AI/ANs and Whites.

National Healthcare 211 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(21 CRM)

Improving >5%

Worsening 1-5%

3

4

Access

(5 CRM)

Same

Worsening >5%

8 Improving 1-5%

9

4

1

1

2

1

2

1
Table 4.8. Change in AI/AN-White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Cancer Women age 40 and over who Adults age 50 and over who Colorectal cancer deaths 

reported they had a mammo- report they ever received a per 100,000 population per

gram within the past 2 years colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, year

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Breast cancer diagnosed at Breast cancer deaths per 

advanced stage 100,000 female population

per year

Colorectal cancer diagnosed 

at advanced stage

End stage renal Hemodialysis patients with Dialysis patients registered 

disease urea reduction ratio 65% or on a waiting list for 

higher transplantation

Heart disease Hospital patients who received

recommended care for heart 

attack

Hospital patients who received

recommended care for heart

failure

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and over

Maternal and Children ages 19-35 months 

child health who received all 

recommended vaccines

Children ages 2-17 who had 

a dental visit

Mental health and Suicide deaths per 100,000 

substance abuse population

Respiratory diseases Hospital patients with

pneumonia who received 

recommended care

Tuberculosis patients who 

completed a curative course 

of treatment within 1 year of 

initiation of treatment

Functional status Home health care patients 

preservation and whose ability to walk or 

rehabilitation move around improved

National Healthcare 212 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives
Table 4.8. Change in AI/AN-White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Supportive and Short-stay nursing home Long-stay nursing home 

palliative care residents with pressure sores residents who were physically 

restrained

High-risk long-stay nursing Home health care patients

home residents with pressure who were admitted to the

sores hospital

Patient safety Appropriate timing of 

antibiotics received by adult 

Medicare patients having 

surgery

Access People under age 65 People under age 65 with

uninsured all year health insurance

People who have a usual People who have a specific

primary care provider source of ongoing care

People who were unable to 

get or delayed in getting needed

medical care, dental care, or 

prescription medications

Note: Measures in bold indicate improvement or worsening at a rate of greater than 5% per year.

Focus on Indian Health Service Facilities

Nationwide, many AI/ANs who are members of a federally recognized Tribe rely on the IHS to provide access

to health care in the counties on or near reservations.17, 18, ix Due to low numbers and lack of data, information

about AI/AN hospitalizations is difficult to obtain in most Federal and State hospital utilization data sources.

The NHDR addresses this gap by examining utilization data from IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals. 

Diabetes is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among AI/AN populations. Its prevention

and control are a major focus of the IHS Director’s Chronic Disease Initiative and the IHS Health

Promotion/Disease Prevention Initiative. Addressing barriers to health care is a large part of the overall IHS

goal of ensuring that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health services are available

and accessible to AI/ANs.

ix Of potentially eligible AI/ANs, 74% sought health care in 2004 at an IHS or tribally contracted facility, according to the

most recent published IHS estimates developed by the Office of Public Health Support, Division of Program Statistics.

National Healthcare 213 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives
Figure 4.16. Hospital admissions for uncontrolled diabetes per 100,000 population age 18 and over in

IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals, 2003-2006, and community hospitals, by race and ethnicity, 2003-

2006

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or Pacific Islander; HCUP SID = Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project

State Inpatient Databases; NPIRS = National Patient Information Reporting System. 

Source: IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals: IHS, Office of Information Technology/NPIRS, National Data Warehouse, Workload and

Population Data Mart; community hospitals: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HCUP SID disparities analysis file, 2003-

2006.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic populations. Data are adjusted for age and gender. The HCUP SID disparities analysis

file is designed to provide national estimates using weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the

U.S. resident population. Years of IHS data prior to 2003 use a denominator based on the 1990 census. This source is not

comparable with estimates following those years, which are based on 2000 bridged census data. Therefore, for comparing IHS with

national estimates, only 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 data from both data sources are presented.

u From 2003 to 2006, the age-adjusted rate of hospitalizations for uncontrolled diabetes decreased for

AI/ANs in IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals (from 37.8 per 100,000 to 26.3 per 100,000; Figure 4.16).

u There were no statistically significant changes for other racial and ethnic groups in community hospitals

during this period.

National Healthcare 214 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives

2005

Rate

2003

2004

AI/AN

IHS Tribal and contract hospitals 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

White

Black

2005

Rate

2003

2004

Total

Hispanic

API

Community hospitals (HCUP SID)

2006
For the nearly 2 million AI/ANs estimated to be living on reservations or other trust lands in 2009 where the

climate is inhospitable, roads are often impassable, and transportation is scarce, health care facilities are far

from accessible.19 These conditions contribute to high rates of perforated appendix, a problem that is

receiving particular attention by IHS. Perforated appendix hospitalization rates, which decreased from 2003

to 2006, are illustrative of the efforts underway, as well as the work that needs to continue to achieve highquality, comprehensive care that is accessible to AI/ANs.20

Figure 4.17. Perforated appendixes per 1,000 admissions with appendicitis, age 18 years and over in

IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals, and community hospitals, by race and ethnicity, 2003-2006

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or Pacific Islander; HCUP SID = Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project

State Inpatient Databases; NPIRS = National Patient Information Reporting System. 

Source: IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals: IHS, Office of Information Technology/NPIRS, National Data Warehouse, Workload and

Population Data Mart, 2003-2006; community hospitals: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HCUP SID disparities analysis

file, 2003-2006.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic populations. Data are adjusted for age and gender. The HCUP SID disparities analysis

file is designed to provide national estimates using weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the

U.S. resident population. Years of IHS data prior to 2003 use a denominator based on the 1990 census. This source is not

comparable with estimates following those years, which are based on 2000 bridged census data. Therefore, for comparing IHS with

national estimates, only 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 data from both data sources are presented.

u From 2003 to 2006, the age-adjusted rate of appendicitis hospitalizations with perforated appendix

decreased for AI/ANs in IHS, Tribal, and contract hospitals (from 384.4 per 1,000 to 332.6 per 1,000;

Figure 4.17).

u The rate in community hospitals during this period remained the same overall as well as for Whites and

Blacks.

National Healthcare 215 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 American Indians and Alaska Natives

2005

Rate

2003

2004

AI/AN

IHS Tribal and contract hospitals (NPIRS)

0

100

200

300

400

2006

0

100

200

300

400

White

Black

2005

Rate

2003

2004

Total

Hispanic

API

Community hospitals (HCUP SID)

2006
Hispanics or Latinos

Previous NHDRs showed that Hispanics had poorer quality of care and worse access to care than nonHispanic Whites for many measures the reports track. Findings based on core report measures of quality and

access to health care that support estimates for Hispanics are shown below.

Figure 4.18. Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites on measures of quality and access

Better = Hispanics receive better quality of care or have better

access to care than non-Hispanic Whites.

Same = Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites receive about the

same quality of care or access to care.

Worse = Hispanics receive poorer quality of care or have worse

access to care than non-Hispanic Whites.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: Data presented are the most recent available.

Table 4.9. Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites on measures of quality and access for most

current data year: Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Cancer Breast cancer diagnosed Women age 40 and over who

at advanced stage reported they had a 

mammogram within the past 

2 years

Colorectal cancer diagnosed Adults age 50 and over who

at advanced stage report they ever received a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, 

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Breast cancer deaths per Colorectal cancer deaths per

100,000 female population 100,000 population per year

per year

Diabetes Adults with diabetes who had 

three major exams in the past year

National Healthcare 216 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(38 CRM)

Same

Worse

8

25

5

5

Better

Access

(6 CRM)

1
Table 4.9. Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites on measures of quality and access for most

current data year: Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

End stage renal Hemodialysis patients with Dialysis patients registered on

disease urea reduction ratio 65% the waiting list for transplantation

or higher

Heart disease Hospital patients who Deaths per 1,000 

received recommended admissions with acute

care for heart attack myocardial infarction as 

principal diagnosis, age 

18 and over

Hospital patients who received

recommended care for heart 

failure

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and over

Maternal and child Children ages 3-6 with a Children ages 2-17 given 

health vision check advice about physical 

activity

Children ages 2-17 who had Children ages 2-17 given 

a dental visit advice about healthy eating

Children ages 19-35 months

who received all 

recommended vaccines

Mental health and Suicide deaths per Adults age 18 and over with People age 12 and over who

substance abuse 100,000 population past year major depressive completed substance 

episode who received treatment abuse treatment in the

for the depression in the past past year

year

Respiratory diseases Adults age 65 and over who 

ever received pneumococcal 

vaccination

Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received 

recommended care 

Tuberculosis patients who 

completed a curative course 

of treatment within 1 year of 

initiation of treatment

National Healthcare 217 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos
Table 4.9. Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites on measures of quality and access for most

current data year: Specific measures

Topic Better than Whites Worse than Whites Same as Whites

Lifestyle modification Adults with obesity given 

advice about exercise

Current smokers age 18 and 

over given advice to quit 

smoking

Functional status Female Medicare beneficiaries Home health care patients 

preservation and age 65 and over who reported whose ability to walk or 

rehabilitation ever being screened for move around improved

osteoporosis

Supportive and Long-stay nursing home 

palliative care residents who were physically 

restrained

High-risk long-stay nursing 

home residents with pressure 

sores

Short-stay nursing home 

residents with pressure sores

Home health care patients 

who were admitted to the 

hospital

Patient safety Appropriate timing of antibiotics Adults age 65 and over

received by adult Medicare who received potentially

patients having surgery inappropriate prescription 

medications

Timeliness Adults who can sometimes Failure to rescue

or never get care for illness or 

injury as soon as wanted

Patient centeredness Poor provider-patient 

communication—adults

Poor provider-patient 

communication—children

Access People who were unable People under age 65 with

to get or delayed in getting health insurance

needed medical care, 

dental care, or prescription 

medications People under age 65 

uninsured all year

People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care

People who have a usual 

primary care provider

People without a usual source 

of care due to a financial or 

insurance reason

National Healthcare 218 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos
Figure 4.19. Change in Hispanic-non-Hispanic White disparities over time

Improving >5% = Hispanic-non-Hispanic White difference

becoming smaller at an average annual rate greater than 5%.

Improving 1-5% = Hispanic-non-Hispanic White difference

becoming smaller at an average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Same = Hispanic-non-Hispanic White difference not changing.

Worsening 1-5% = Hispanic-non-Hispanic White difference

becoming larger at an average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Worsening >5% = Hispanic-non-Hispanic White difference

becoming larger at an average annual rate greater than 5%.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: The time period for this figure is the most recent and oldest

years of data used in the NHDR. Only 43 core report measures

could be tracked over time for Hispanics and non-Hispanic

Whites.

Table 4.10. Change in Hispanic-non-Hispanic White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Cancer Women age 40 and over who Adults age 50 and over who Breast cancer diagnosed at 

reported they had a report they ever received a advanced stage

mammogram within the past colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy,

2 years proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Colorectal cancer diagnosed Colorectal cancer deaths per Cancer deaths per 100,000 

at advanced stage 100,000 population per year female population per year 

for breast cancer

Diabetes Adults with diabetes who had 

three major exams in the 

past year

End stage renal Hemodialysis patients with Dialysis patients registered 

disease urea reduction ratio 65% or on a waiting list for 

higher transplantation

Heart disease Hospital patients with heart Hospital patients with heart Heart attack mortality

attack who received failure who received

recommended hospital care recommended hospital care

HIV and AIDS New AIDS cases per 100,000 

population age 13 and over

National Healthcare 219 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(37 CRM)

Quality

Improving >5%

Worsening 1-5%

15

6

Access

(6 CRM)

Same

Worsening >5%

Improving 1-5%

5

7

4

1

1

1

3

1
Table 4.10. Change in Hispanic-non-Hispanic White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Maternal and Children ages 2-17 given Children ages 2-17 given Children ages 3-6 with a 

child health advice about healthy eating advice about exercise vision check

Children ages 2-17 who had a Children ages 19-35 months 

dental visit in the past year who received all 

recommended vaccines

Mental health and Suicide deaths per 100,000 People age 12 and over who

substance abuse population needed treatment for any 

illicit drug use and who 

received such treatment at a 

specialty facility in the past 

year

Adults age 18 and over with 

past year major depressive 

episode who completed 

treatment for the depression 

in the past year

Respiratory Adults age 65 and over who Tuberculosis patients who

diseases ever received pneumococcal completed a curative course 

vaccination of treatment within 1 year of 

initiation of treatment

Hospital patients with 

pneumonia who received 

recommended hospital care

Lifestyle Current smokers age 18 and Adults with obesity given 

modification over given advice to quit advice about exercise

smoking

Functional status Home health care patients 

preservation and whose ability to walk or move 

rehabilitation around improved

Supportive and Long-stay nursing home 

palliative care residents who were physically 

restrained

High-risk long-stay nursing 

home residents who have 

pressure sores

Short-stay nursing home 

residents who have pressure 

sores

Home health care patients 

who were admitted to the 

hospital

National Healthcare 220 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos
Table 4.10. Change in Hispanic-non-Hispanic White disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Patient safety Appropriate timing of Adults age 65 and over who 

antibiotics received by adult received potentially

Medicare patients having inappropriate prescription Failure to rescue

surgery medications

Timeliness Adults who can sometimes 

or never get care for illness 

or injury as soon as wanted

Patient Poor provider-patient 

centeredness communication—adults

Poor provider-patient 

communication—children

Access People under age 65 with People who were unable to People who have a usual 

health insurance get or delayed in getting primary care provider

needed medical care, dental 

care, or prescription 

medications

People under age 65 

uninsured all year

People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care

People without a usual 

source of care due to a 

financial or insurance reason

Note: Measures in bold indicate improvement or worsening at a rate of greater than 5% per year.

National Healthcare 221 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos
Focus on Hispanic Subpopulations

The Hispanic population in the United States is highly heterogeneous. Almost 60% of all Hispanics in the

country are those of Mexican extraction, making this group the largest subpopulation. People originating

from Puerto Rico, Central America, and South America are the next largest subgroups. Variation is seen in

access to and quality of health care among Hispanics related to country of origin. Findings are presented

below on differences among different Hispanic subpopulations on four quality measures focusing on

prevention, chronic care management, and patient centeredness: colorectal cancer screening, diabetes

management, and provider-patient communication. In addition, this section reports findings on one access

measure, uninsurance.

This section also features selected measures from the CHIS. CHIS is an example of a data source that can

provide data for Hispanic subgroups. In 2008, California’s Hispanic population was more than twice the

percentage in the United States overall (36.6% in California compared with 15.4% of the 2008 U.S.

population).9 Almost 30% of the Hispanic population in the United States lives in California.21 

CHIS data show disparities among Hispanics in California, not only compared with non-Hispanic Whites but

also within Hispanic subgroups (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Central American, and South American). The data

also show disparities across Hispanic subgroups by income and insurance status. This section shows only

some of the significant disparities for these groups in California from CHIS data. The selected measures in

this section are limited to a subset of measures available to supplement the existing national measures used in

the report. 

National Healthcare 222 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos
Figure 4.20. Adults age 50 and over who received a sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood

test in the past 5 years, California only, by race, Hispanic subgroup, income, and insurance status, 2007

Source: University of California, Los Angeles,

Center for Health Policy Research, California

Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized

adults age 50 and over in California. 

Note: Income groups are all Hispanic. For this

measure, public insurance includes people

with Medicare and/or Medicaid coverage.

u Overall, Hispanics had a lower percentage than Whites of adults age 50 and over who had colorectal

cancer screening (59.2% compared with 69.2%; Figure 4.20). Mexicans also had a lower percentage

than Whites (57.2% compared with 69.2%). There were no statistically significant differences among

Hispanic subgroups.

u Among Hispanics, poor people and low-income people had a lower percentage than high-income

people of adults age 50 and over who had colorectal cancer screening (46.8% and 57.5%, respectively,

compared with 67.9%).

u Among Hispanics, adults age 50 and over with public insurance were less likely to have colorectal

cancer screening than people with private insurance (52.6% compared with 62.2%). Adults age 50 and

over who were uninsured were almost half as likely as people with private insurance to have colorectal

cancer screening (32.4% compared with 62.2%).

National Healthcare 223 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

Percent 

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Mexican

Central American

High-Income Hispanic

South American

Puerto Rican

Hispanic With Private Insurance

Hispanic With Public Insurance

Hispanic Without Insurance

Middle-Income Hispanic

0

25

50

75

100

Poor Hispanic

Low-Income Hispanic
Figure 4.21. People age 40 and over with diabetes who had hemoglobin A1c testing, eye examination,

and foot examination within the past year, California only, by ethnicity, income, and insurance status,

2007 

Source: University of California, Los 

Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research,

California Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator:Civilian noninstitutionalized

adults age 40 and over in California with 

diabetes. 

Note: Income groups are all Hispanic. Data

did not meet criteria for statistical reliability for

Puerto Ricans, South Americans, and 

uninsured Hispanics.

u Overall, Hispanics in California age 40 and over with diabetes were less likely than non-Hispanic

Whites to have had all three recommended services for diabetes (36.0% compared with 51.4%; Figure

4.21). 

u There were no statistically significant differences among Hispanic subgroups in recommended care for

diabetes.

u Among Hispanics, the percentage of adults in California with diabetes who received all three

recommended diabetes-related exams was lower for poor people (28.0%) and for low-income people

(30.8%) than for high-income people (51.3%). 

u The percentage of Hispanic adults age 40 and over with diabetes who received all three recommended

services for diabetes was not significantly different between people with any private insurance and

people with public insurance.

National Healthcare 224 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

Percent 

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Mexican

Central American

Hispanic With Private Insurance

Hispanic With Public Insurance

Middle-Income Hispanic

0

25

50

75

100

Poor Hispanic

Low-Income Hispanic

High-Income Hispanic
Figure 4.22. People under age 65 uninsured all year, California only, by ethnicity and Hispanic subgroup,

2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007; by Hispanic subgroup, stratified by income; by education; by English

proficiency; and by place of birth, 2007

National Healthcare 225 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hispanic 

Mexican

Puerto Rican

2001

Central American

Percent 

2003

2005

Non-Hispanic 

White 

California Total

South American

2007

Percent

Mexican

Central American

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

Poor 

Low Income

South American

Middle Income

High Income

Percent

Mexican

Central American

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

<High School 

High School Grad

At Least

Some College

South American

Percent 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Well/Very Well

Not Well/Not At All

English Only
Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health

Policy Research, California Health Interview Survey, 2001, 2003,

2005, and 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age

65 in California.

Note: Data did not meet criteria for statistical reliability for Puerto

Ricans for data years 2001, 2005, and 2007, for Puerto Rican

income and education groups, and for South American income

and education groups except low income and some college.

u Overall, the percentage of Californians under age 65 who were uninsured all year decreased from

12.4% in 2001 to 11.2% in 2007 (Figure 4.22). For Hispanics, the percentage who were uninsured also

decreased from 22.0% in 2001 to 18.0% in 2007. 

u In 2007, the percentage of Californians under age 65 who were uninsured all year was about three times

as high for Hispanics as for non-Hispanic Whites (18.0% compared with 5.8%) overall. Among

Hispanic subgroups, the percentage was about three times as high for Mexicans (18.9%) and about four

times as high for Central Americans (26.4%) compared with non-Hispanic Whites (5.8%).

u Among Hispanics, the percentage of people uninsured all year was more than five times as high for

poor people (23.0%) as for high-income people (4.1%). For low-income people, the percentage was

also more than five times as high (21.1%). The percentage was about three times as high for middleincome people (12.5%).

u Across all income groups, Mexicans were more likely to be uninsured all year than non-Hispanic

Whites. However, Central Americans had the highest rate of being uninsured all year among poor

people and low-income people. 

u Among Hispanics, the percentage of people uninsured all year was more than four times as high for

people with less than a high school education (24.7%) and more than twice as high for high school

graduates (14.2%) compared with people with at least some college education (6.1%). 

u Across all education groups, Central Americans had the highest rate of being uninsured all year.

Mexicans also had higher rates than non-Hispanic Whites across all education groups.

National Healthcare 226 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

Percent 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Not Born in U.S.

Born in U.S.
u Among Hispanics, the percentage of people who were uninsured all year was five times as high for

people who did not speak English well or at all as for people who were native English speakers (41.5%

compared with 7.8%). The percentage of people who were uninsured all year was almost twice as high for

people who speak English well or very well as for native English speakers (14.6% compared with 7.8%).

u Among Hispanics, the percentage of people who were uninsured all year was almost four times as high

for people who were not born in the United States as for people who were born in the United States.

Figure 4.23. Adults age 18 and over who reported difficulty understanding their doctor during their last

visit within the past 2 years, California only, by ethnicity, Hispanic subgroup, income, and insurance

status, 2007

Source: University of California, Los Angeles,

Center for Health Policy Research, California

Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adults

in California age 18 and over. 

Note: Income groups are all Hispanic. Data did

not meet criteria for statistical reliability for Puerto

Rican and South American subgroups.

u Overall, Hispanics age 18 and over were more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have difficulty

understanding their doctor (5.5% compared with 2.6%; Figure 4.23). Mexicans and Central Americans

were also more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have difficulty understanding their doctor (5.7% and

5.7%, respectively, compared with 2.6%).

u Among Hispanics, poor adults (8.5%), low-income adults (6.0%), and middle-income adults (3.8%)

were more likely than high-income adults (2.2%) to have difficulty understanding their doctor.

u Among Hispanics, adults with public insurance and adults without insurance were more likely to have

difficulty understanding their doctor than those with private insurance (6.9% and 6.1%, respectively,

compared with 2.9%).

National Healthcare 227 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

Percent 

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Mexican

Central American

Hispanic With Private Insurance

Hispanic With Public Insurance

Hispanic Without Insurance

Middle-Income Hispanic

0

2

4

6

8

10

Poor Hispanic

Low-Income Hispanic

High-Income Hispanic
Figure 4.24. Adults age 18 and over who reported language as the reason they had difficulty

understanding their doctor during their last visit within the past 2 years, California only, by ethnicity,

Hispanic subgroup, income, and insurance status, 2007

Source: University of California, Los Angeles,

Center for Health Policy Research, California

Health Interview Survey, 2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized adults

in California age 18 and over.

Note: Income groups are all Hispanic. Data did

not meet criteria for statistical reliability for Puerto

Rican and South American subgroups.

u Hispanics had a higher percentage than non-Hispanic Whites who reported language as the reason they

had difficulty understanding their doctor during their last visit (3.7% compared with 1.5%; Figure 4.24).

Among Hispanics, Mexicans (4.0%) and Central Americans (4.1%) had a higher percentage than nonHispanic Whites (1.5%). 

u Among Hispanics, poor and low-income adults had a higher percentage than high-income adults who

reported language as the reason they had difficulty understanding their doctor during their last visit

(5.3% and 5.7%, respectively, compared with 1.4%).

u Among Hispanics, people without insurance had a higher percentage than people with private insurance

who reported language as the reason they had difficulty understanding their doctor during their last visit

(5.0% compared with 2.9%).

National Healthcare 228 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Hispanics or Latinos

Percent 

California Total

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Mexican

Central American

Hispanic With Private Insurance

Hispanic With Public Insurance

Hispanic Without Insurance

Middle-Income Hispanic

0

2

4

6

8

10

Poor Hispanic

Low-Income Hispanic

High-Income Hispanic
Recent Immigrants and Limited-EnglishProficient Populations

Recent Immigrants 

Immigrants often encounter barriers to high-quality health care. In 2003, about 11.7% (33.5 million of the

286 million people living in the United States) were born outside the United States, up from 7.9% (20

million) in 1990.22 Asians and Hispanics are much more likely to be foreign born than are Whites or Blacks.

About 70% of Asians and 40% of Hispanics in the United States are foreign born, compared with about 4%

of Whites and 6% of Blacks.23

Certain diseases are concentrated among Americans born in other countries. For example, in 2006, 56.6% of

tuberculosis cases in the Nation were among foreign-born individuals.24 In addition, the case rate among

foreign-born individuals is more than 10 times as high as the case rate among individuals born in the United

States.24 However, the case rates for tuberculosis among U.S.-born and foreign-born individuals are both

decreasing.24

Language Barriers

Quality health care requires that patients and providers communicate effectively. People who speak a

language other than English at home may have less access to resources, such as health insurance, that

facilitate getting needed health care. Providers’ and patients’ ability to communicate clearly with one

another can be compromised if they do not speak the same language. Quality may suffer if patients with

limited English proficiency cannot express their care needs to providers who speak English only and do not

have an interpreter’s assistance. 

Communication problems between the patient and provider can lead to lower patient adherence to medication

schedules and decreased participation in medical decisionmaking. These problems also can exacerbate

cultural differences that impair the delivery of quality health care. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. 2000d, prohibits discrimination against patients based on their national origin by providers

receiving Federal financial assistance.25 Such providers are required to take reasonable steps to provide

people with limited English proficiency with a meaningful opportunity to participate in programs funded by

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Limited English proficiency is a barrier to quality health care for many Americans. About 52 million

Americans, or 19.4% of the population, spoke a language other than English at home in 2000, up from 32

million in 1990. Of the 52 million, 32 million (about 12% of the population) spoke Spanish, 10 million

(about 4% of the population) spoke another Indo-European language, 7.8 million (about 3% of the

population) spoke an Asian or Pacific Islander language, and 2 million spoke other languages at home.

Almost half of the people who spoke a foreign language at home reported not speaking English very well.26

A study of health plan members and use of interpreters showed that the use of interpreters reduced disparities

for Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Islander members (28% and 21%, respectively).27 

National Healthcare 229 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Recent Immigrants & Limited-English-Proficient Populations
Measures

As in previous NHDRs, findings are presented below for several quality and access measures based on data

from the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

These sources also are supplemented with data from the CHIS. Information on disparities in health care

quality and access for Americans born outside the United States and for Americans with limited Englishspeaking skills are presented for tuberculosis therapy, poor communication with health care providers, and

uninsurance.

Figure 4.25. Completion of therapy for tuberculosis within 1 year of being diagnosed, people born

outside the United States, by race and ethnicity, 1999-2005 

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Tuberculosis Surveillance System, 1999-2005.

Denominator: Foreign-born U.S. resident population with verified tuberculosis, all ages.

u From 1999 to 2005, the percentage of people who completed therapy for tuberculosis within 1 year of

being diagnosed improved for all groups, except for foreign-born non-Hispanic Whites (Figure 4.25).

u In 2005, the percentage of people who completed therapy for tuberculosis within 1 year of being

diagnosed was significantly higher for foreign-born Blacks compared with foreign-born Whites (84.7%

compared with 82.0%). 

u There were no statistically significant differences between the percentage of foreign-born APIs and

foreign-born Whites who completed therapy for tuberculosis within 1 year of being diagnosed (80.7%

compared with 82.0%). Nor were there any statistically significant differences between foreign-born

Hispanics and foreign-born non-Hispanic Whites (81.9% compared with 81.6%). 

National Healthcare 230 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Recent Immigrants & Limited-English-Proficient Populations

75

80

85

90

95

100

White

Total

API

2000

2002

Percent 

1999

Z

2001

2003

2004

Black

2005

75

80

85

90

95

100 Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Percent 

Z

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005
Figure 4.26. Composite measure: Adult ambulatory patients who reported poor communication with

health providers, by race and ethnicity, stratified by language spoken at home, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and

over.

Note: Average percentage of adults age 18 and over who had a

doctor’s office or clinic visit in the last 12 months and were

reported to have had poor communication with health providers

(i.e., their health providers sometimes or never listened carefully,

explained things clearly, showed respect for what they had to say,

and spent enough time with them). Data were insufficient for this

analysis for Black non-English speakers.

u The overall percentage of adults who had a doctor’s office or clinic visit in the last 12 months who

reported poor communication with their health providers was significantly higher for individuals who

speak a foreign language at home than for individuals who speak English at home (13.4% compared

with 9.5%; Figure 4.26).

u The percentage of adults who reported poor communication with their health providers was

significantly higher for Whites who speak some other language at home than for Whites who speak

English at home (12.1% compared with 9.3%). The percentage also was higher for Asians who speak

some other language at home than for Asians who speak English at home (17.4% compared with 9.3%). 

u There were no statistically significant differences for other racial or ethnic groups due to small sample

sizes.

National Healthcare 231 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Recent Immigrants & Limited-English-Proficient Populations

0

5

10

15

20

25

White

Percent

English

Other language

Hispanic

Total

Asian

Non-Hispanic

White
Figure 4.27. Adults under age 65 who were uninsured all year, by race and ethnicity, stratified by

language spoken at home, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 18-64.

u The overall percentage of adults under age 65 uninsured all year was almost three times as high for

individuals who speak a foreign language at home as for individuals who speak English at home

(33.5% compared with 11.5%; Figure 4.27).

u The percentage of people uninsured all year was significantly higher for Whites, Blacks, and Asians

who speak some other language at home than for their counterparts who speak English at home (37.1%

compared with 11.1% for Whites, 31.2% compared with 14.0% for Blacks, and 19.8% compared with

5.3% for Asians).

u The percentage of people uninsured all year was more than twice as high for Hispanics who speak some

other language at home as for Hispanics who speak English at home (37.8% compared with 17.2%).

National Healthcare 232 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Recent Immigrants & Limited-English-Proficient Populations

0

10

20

30

40

50

White

Percent

English

Other language

Total

Black

Asian

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

English

Other language

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

White
Language Assistance

Clear communication is an important component of effective health care delivery. It is vital for providers to

understand patients’ health care needs and for patients to understand providers’ diagnoses and treatment

recommendations. Communication barriers can relate to language, culture, and health literacy.

For people with limited English proficiency, having language assistance is of particular importance. People

with limited English proficiency may choose a usual source of care in part based on language concordance.

Not having a language-concordant provider may limit or discourage some patients from establishing a usual

source of care.

The NHDR includes a noncore measure of access: provision of language assistance by the usual source of

care. Language assistance includes bilingual clinicians, trained medical interpreters, and bilingual

receptionists and other informal interpreters.

Figure 4.28. Adults with limited English proficiency, by whether they had a usual source of care with or

without language assistance, 2003-2006

Key: USC = usual source of care.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2003-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and

over.

Note: Language assistance includes bilingual clinicians, trained

medical interpreters, and informal interpreters (e.g., bilingual

receptionists).

u Half of individuals with limited English proficiency did not have a usual source of care in 2006 (Figure

4.28).

u In 2006, less than half (44%) of individuals with limited English proficiency had a usual source of care

who offered language assistance.

u In 2006, only 6% of individuals with limited English proficiency had a usual source of care that did not

offer language assistance.

National Healthcare 233 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Recent Immigrants & Limited-English-Proficient Populations

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

2003

2

51

7

7

47

2004

42 46

No USC

USC with language assistance

USC without language assistance

2

52

44

4

2005

50

44

6

2006
Low-Income Groups

In this report, poor populations are defined as people living in families whose household income falls below

specific poverty thresholds. These thresholds vary by family size and composition and are updated annually

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.28, x After falling for nearly a decade (1990-2000), the number of poor

people in America rose from 31.6 million in 2000 to 36.5 million in 2006, and the rate of poverty increased

from 11.3% to 12.3% during the same period.29 

Poverty varies by race and ethnicity. In 2006, 24% of Blacks, 21% of Hispanics, 10% of Asians, and 8% of

Whites were poor.29 People with low incomes often experience worse health and are more likely to die

prematurely.30 In general, poor populations have reduced access to high-quality care. While people with low

incomes are more likely to be uninsured, income-related differences in quality of care that are independent of

health insurance coverage have also been demonstrated.31

Previous chapters of this report described health care differences by income. This section summarizes

disparities in quality of and access to health care for poorxi individuals compared with high-incomexii

individuals. For each core report measure, poor people can have health care that is worse than, about the

same as, or better than health care received by high-income people. Only relative differences of at least 10%

that are statistically significant at alpha = 0.05 are discussed in this report. Access measures focus on

facilitators and barriers to health care and exclude health care utilization measures.

In addition, changes in differences related to income are examined over time. For each core report measure,

racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups are compared with a designated comparison group at different

times. Consistent with Healthy People 2010, disparities are measured in relative terms as the percentage

difference between each group and a comparison group. Changes in disparity are measured by subtracting

the percentage difference from the comparison group at the baseline year from the percentage difference

from the comparison group at the most recent year. The change in each disparity is then divided by the

number of years between the baseline and most recent estimate to calculate change in disparity per year. 

Core report measures (refer to Table 1.2) for which the relative differences are changing less than 1% per

year are identified as staying the same. Core report measures for which the relative differences are becoming

smaller at a rate of more than 1% per year are identified as improving. Core report measures for which the

relative differences are becoming larger at a rate of more than 1% per year are identified as worsening.

Changes of greater than 5% per year are also differentiated from changes of between 1% and 5% per year in

some figures.

x For example, in 2008, the Federal poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children was $21,834. 

xi Household income less than Federal poverty thresholds.

xii Household income 400% of Federal poverty thresholds and higher.

National Healthcare 234 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Low-Income Groups
Figure 4.29. Poor compared with high-income individuals on measures of quality and access

Better = Poor people receive better quality of care or have better

access to care than high-income individuals.

Same = Poor and high-income individuals receive about the same

quality of care or access to care.

Worse = Poor people receive poorer quality of care or have worse

access to care than high-income individuals.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: Data presented are for the most recent data year available.

Table 4.11. Poor compared with high income on measures of quality and access for most current data

year: Specific measures

Topic Better than Worse than Same as High Income

High Income High Income

Cancer Adults age 50 and over who 

report they ever received a 

colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, 

proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Women age 40 and over who 

reported they had a mammogram within the past 2 years

Diabetes Adults with diabetes who had 

three major exams in the past 

year

Heart disease Deaths per 1,000 admissions 

with acute myocardial infarction 

as principal diagnosis, age 

18 and over

National Healthcare 235 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Low-Income Groups

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent 

Quality

(20 CRM)

Same

4 Worse

6

15

Better

Access

(6 CRM)

1
Table 4.11. Poor compared with high income on measures of quality and access for most current data

year: Specific measures

Topic Better than Worse than Same as High Income

High Income High Income

Maternal and Children ages 2-17 given 

child health advice about exercise

Children ages 2-17 given advice 

about healthy eating

Children ages 19-35 months 

who received all recommended 

vaccines

Children ages 3-6 with a 

vision check

Children ages 2-17 who had a 

dental visit in the past year

Mental health and People age 12 and over Adults age 18 and over with 

substance abuse who needed treatment for past year major depressive 

any illicit drug use and episode who received 

who received such treatment for the depression

treatment at a specialty in the past year

facility in the past year

Respiratory Adults age 65 and over who 

diseases ever received pneumococcal 

vaccination

Lifestyle Adults with obesity given Current smokers age 18 and

modification advice about exercise over given advice to quit 

smoking

Functional status Female Medicare beneficiaries 

preservation and age 65 and over who reported 

rehabilitation ever being screened for 

osteoporosis

Patient safety Failure to rescue

Adults age 65 and over who 

received potentially 

inappropriate prescription 

medications

Timeliness Adults who can sometimes or 

never get care for illness or 

injury as soon as wanted

Patient centeredness Poor provider-patient 

communication—adults

Poor provider-patient 

communication—children

National Healthcare 236 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Low-Income Groups
Table 4.11. Poor compared with high income on measures of quality and access for most current data

year: Specific measures

Topic Better than Worse than Same as High Income

High Income High Income

Access People under age 65 with 

health insurance

People under age 65 

uninsured all year

People who have a specific 

source of ongoing care

People who have a usual 

primary care provider

People who were unable to 

get or delayed in getting 

needed medical care, dental 

care, or prescription medications

People without a usual source 

of care due to a financial or 

insurance reason

Figure 4.30. Change in poor-high-income disparities over time

Improving >5% = Poor-high-income difference becoming smaller

at an average annual rate greater than 5%.

Improving 1-5% = Poor-high-income difference becoming smaller

at an average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Same = Poor-high-income difference not changing.

Worsening 1-5% = Poor-high-income difference becoming larger

at an average annual rate between 1% and 5%.

Worsening >5% = Poor-high-income difference becoming larger

at an average annual rate greater than 5%.

Key: CRM = core report measures (Table 1.2).

Note: The time period for this figure is the most recent and oldest

years of data used in the NHDR. Only 24 core report measures of

quality and access could be tracked over time for poor and highincome individuals.

National Healthcare 237 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Low-Income Groups

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Quality

(18 CRM)

Quality

Improving >5%

Worsening 1-5%

5

Access

(6 CRM)

Same

Worsening >5%

Improving 1-5%

3

1

6

1

4

3
Table 4.12. Change in poor-high-income disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Cancer Women age 40 and over Adults age 50 and over who 

who reported they had a report they ever received a

mammogram within the colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy,

past 2 years proctoscopy, or fecal occult 

blood test

Diabetes Adults with diabetes who 

had three major exams in 

the past year

Heart disease Deaths per 1,000 admissions 

with acute myocardial 

infarction as principal 

diagnosis, age 18 and over

Maternal and Children ages 3-6 with a Children ages 19-35 months Children ages 2-17 given 

child health vision check who received all advice about exercise

recommended vaccines

Children ages 2-17 given

advice about healthy eating

Children ages 2-17 who 

had a dental visit

Mental health and People age 12 and over who 

substance abuse needed treatment for any 

illicit drug use and who 

received such treatment at 

a specialty facility in the 

past year

Respiratory diseases Adults age 65 and over who

ever received pneumococcal 

vaccination

Lifestyle Current smokers age 18 Adults with obesity given

modification and over given advice to advice about exercise

quit smoking

Patient safety Adults age 65 and over who Failure to rescue

received potentially 

inappropriate prescription 

medications

Timeliness Adults who can sometimes 

or never get care for illness 

or injury as soon as wanted

Patient Poor provider-patient 

centeredness communication—adults

Poor provider-patient 

communication—children

National Healthcare 238 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Low-Income Groups
Table 4.12. Change in poor-high-income disparities over time: Specific measures

Topic Improving Worsening Same

Access People under age 65 with People who were unable to

health insurance get or delayed in getting 

needed medical care, dental 

care, or prescription 

medications

People under age 65 

uninsured all year

People who have a usual 

primary care provider

People without a usual 

source of care due to a 

financial or insurance reason

People with a specific 

source of ongoing care

Note: Measures in bold indicate improvement or worsening at a rate of greater than 5% per year.

National Healthcare 239 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Low-Income Groups
Women

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were 152 million females in the United States in 2006 (51% of

the U.S. population)32; of these, 47 million are members of racial or ethnic minority groups.33 By 2050, it is

projected that just under half of females in the United States will be members of racial or ethnic minority

groups.33 The ratio of males to females is highest at birth, when male infants outnumber female infants, and

gradually declines with age due to higher male mortality rates. Among Americans age 85 and over, women

outnumber men by more than 2 to 1.34

Women in the United States have a life expectancy 5.2 years longer than men35 and lower age-adjusted death

rates than men for 12 of the 15 leading causes of death.36 However, women are more likely than men to

report conditions that affect daily function, such as arthritis and serious mental illness.37 There is significant

variation in health status and health-related behaviors for women of different races and ethnicities.38 In

general, gender differences in quality of care are small. Access may be affected by various factors, however.

For example, poverty disproportionately affects women; in 2006, 14.1% of women lived in households with

incomes below the Federal poverty level compared with 11.1% of men.39

The NHDR tracks many measures of relevance to women. Findings presented here highlight four quality

measures and one access measure of particular importance to women:

Component of health care need Measure

Prevention Adults with obesity given advice about healthy eating

Outcome Heart attack mortality

Outcome New AIDS cases 

Patient safety Obstetric trauma

Access to care Usual source of care

Quality of Care

Prevention: Adults With Obesity Given Advice About

Healthy Eating

In 2005-2006, more than 35% of women age 20 and over in the United States were obese, compared with

33% of men,40, xiii putting them at increased risk for many chronic, deadly conditions, such as hypertension,

cancer, diabetes, and coronary heart disease.41 Reducing obesity is a major objective in preventing heart

disease and stroke.42 Research shows large racial and ethnic differences in obesity rates among women. The

prevalence of obesity is higher for Black and Mexican-American women compared with White women.43

The health care system has a central role to play in helping people become aware of the risks of obesity when

they are overweight and suggesting strategies for reducing these risks.

xiii Obesity is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. It is noteworthy that BMI incorporates both a

person’s weight and height in determining if he or she is overweight or obese.

National Healthcare 240 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women
Figure 4.31. Adults with obesity who ever received advice from a health provider about eating fewer

high-fat or high-cholesterol foods, by race and ethnicity, stratified by gender, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Data were insufficient for this analysis for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

u Obese women were more likely than men to receive advice about healthy eating (52.0% compared with

48.5%; Figure 4.31). 

u Among obese women, Blacks were less likely than Whites to receive advice about healthy eating

(46.0% compared with 54.0%), and Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to receive

such advice (48.7% compared with 55.0%).

National Healthcare 241 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

Percent 

Total White Black

Male

Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent 

Male

Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Non-Hispanic

White

Hispanic
Outcome: Heart Attack Mortality

Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer among women.44 While significant progress has been made

in reducing mortality from heart disease over the past three decades, one woman in four still dies from this

group of conditions. Women are generally older than men when diagnosed with heart disease (73 versus 65

years on average, according to one study45). Therefore, treatment and outcomes may be compromised by the

fact that women are more likely to have other chronic conditions when initially diagnosed. 

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one type of cardiovascular disease discussed in this report. Measuring

processes of heart attack care can provide information about whether a patient received specific needed

services, but these processes make up a very small proportion of all the care that a heart attack patient needs.

Measuring outcomes of heart attack care, such as mortality, can provide a more global assessment of all the

care a patient receives and usually is the aspect of quality that matters most to patients.

Figure 4.32. Deaths per 1,000 adult hospital admissions with acute myocardial infarction, by gender 

and race and ethnicity, 2006

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander. White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient Databases (SID)

disparities analysis file, 2006. 

Note: Rates are adjusted by age, gender, age-gender interactions, and all patient refined-diagnosis related group risk-of-mortality

score. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is designed to provide national estimates using weighted records from a sample of

hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the U.S. resident population. 

u The death rate for hospital admissions with AMI was higher for females compared with males (86.6 per

1,000 compared with 61.7 per 1,000; Figure 4.32). Among females, rates were lower both for Blacks

(61.5 per 1,000) and Hispanics (78.1 per 1,000) than for Whites (91.2 per 1,000).

u There were no statistically significant differences between API females and White females in the death

rate for hospital admissions with AMI.

National Healthcare 242 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

Rate

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

White Female

Black Female 

 Total

Male

Female

API Female

Rate

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

White Female

Hispanic Female
Outcome: New AIDS Cases

Early and appropriate treatment of HIV infection can delay progression to AIDS. Improved management of

HIV infections has likely contributed to reduced transmission and an associated decline in new AIDS cases.

But there are gender differences in sexual behavior patterns among men and women, leading to a higher

prevalence of new AIDS cases in men. The higher rates of progression from HIV to AIDS in African

Americans in general, and African-American women in particular, may be a function of poor medication

self-management. Interventions to improve HIV medication self-management by addressing numeracy skills

may help to narrow the gap in health disparities among African-American women with HIV and AIDS.46

Figure 4.33. New AIDS cases per 100,000 population age 13 and over, by race/ethnicity, stratified by

gender, 2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

HIV/AIDS Surveillance System, 2007.

Denominator: U.S. population age 13 and over.

Note: The source categorizes race/ethnicity as a single item.

White = non-Hispanic White; Black = non-Hispanic Black.

Data did not meet criteria for statistical reliability for AI/AN

females.

u For the overall U.S. population, the rate of new AIDS cases for males was almost triple that for females

(21.6 compared with 7.5 per 100,000 population; Figure 4.33).

u The rate was significantly higher for males than for females in all groups: Blacks (81.3 per 100,000 for

males and 39.8 per 100,000 for females), Asians (7.3 per 100,000 for males and 1.6 per 100,000 for

females), Hispanics (31.0 per 100,000 for males and 8.9 per 100,000 for females), and Whites (10.6 per

100,000 for males and 1.8 per 100,000 for females).

u Among females, Blacks and Hispanics had significantly higher rates of new AIDS cases than Whites

(39.8 and 8.9 per 100,000, respectively, compared with 1.8 per 100,000). Asian women had lower rates

than White women (1.6 per 100,000 compared with 1.8 per 100,000).

u No group has yet achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 1.0 new AIDS case per 100,000 population.

National Healthcare 243 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Rate

Male

Female

Asian

Hispanic

Total

Black

AI/AN

Healthy

 People 2010

Target: 1.0
Access to Care

Usual Source of Care

Higher costs, poorer outcomes, and greater disparities are observed among individuals without a usual source

of care.47 Women tend to have a usual source of care more often than men, but disparities are seen among

women in different income groups.

Figure 4.34. People with a specific source of ongoing care, by race, ethnicity, and income, stratified by 

gender, 2007

u Overall, the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing care was significantly higher for

females than for males (89.8% compared with 82.8%; Figure 4.34).

u The percentage was also significantly higher for females than for males among all racial and ethnic

groups: Whites (89.9% for females compared with 82.8% for males), Blacks (89.0% compared with

82.2%), Asians (89.6% compared with 85.5%), AI/ANs (90.5% compared with 73.1%), non-Hispanic

Whites (91.5% compared with 85.3%), and Hispanics (82.9% compared with 72.1%).

u Among females, the percentage was significantly lower for poor (83.4%), near-poor (84.9%), and

middle-income (90.1%) individuals than for high-income individuals (95.0%). 

u There were no statistically significant differences by race or ethnicity among females.

National Healthcare 244 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

Asian

Percent

Female

Male

Total

White

Black

0

Z

50

60

70

80

90

100

AI/AN

>1 Race

Percent

Female

Male

Non-Hispanic 

White

Hispanic

0

Z

50

60

70

80

90

100
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey,

2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population, all ages.

Note: Measure is age adjusted to the 2000 standard population.

Figure 4.35. People without a usual source of care who indicate a financial or insurance reason for not

having a source of care, by race and ethnicity, stratified by gender, 2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Note: Data for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and Asian males did not meet the

criteria for statistical reliability, data quality, or confidentiality.

National Healthcare 245 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

Percent

Female

Male

Poor

Middle 

Near Poor

Income

High 

Income

0

Z

50

60

70

80

90

100Percent 

Total White Black

Male

Female

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Asian

Percent 

Male

Female

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Non-Hispanic

White

Hispanic
u Females were more likely than males to lack a usual source of care due to financial or insurance reasons

(20.0% compared with 14.9%; Figure 4.35). However, there were no statistically significant differences

by gender among any of the racial or ethnic groups.

u There were no statistically significant racial or ethnic differences among females.

Patient Safety

Obstetric Trauma

Childbirth and reproductive care are the most common reasons for women of childbearing age to use health

care. With more than 11,000 births each day in the United States, childbirth is the most common reason for

hospital admission.48 Obstetric trauma involving a severe tear (i.e., 3rd or 4th degree laceration) to the vagina

or surrounding tissues during delivery is a common complication of childbirth.

The higher risk of severe perineal laceration may be related to the degree of fetal-maternal size disproportion.

API women with the smallest body size experience most obstetric trauma.49 In addition, although any

delivery can result in trauma, existing evidence shows that severe perineal trauma can be reduced by

restricted use of episiotomy and forceps.50

This year, the NHDR presents a measure of obstetric trauma occurring in vaginal deliveries without

instrument assistance.

Figure 4.36. Obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration per 1,000 vaginal deliveries without

instrument assistance, by race/ethnicity, 2006

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient

Databases (SID) disparities analysis file, 2006.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Data were not

available for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Data are

adjusted for age, gender, and diagnosis-related group

clusters. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is designed to

provide national estimates using weighted records from a

sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the U.S.

resident population. 

National Healthcare 246 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

White

Rate

Black

Hispanic

API

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Total
u In 2006, the overall rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was lower for Black

women and Hispanic women compared with White women (26.1 per 1,000 vaginal deliveries without

instrument assistance and 30.1 per 1,000, respectively, compared with 39.1 per 1,000; Figure 4.36).

u The overall rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was higher for API women than

for White women (57.4 per 1,000 vaginal deliveries without instrument assistance compared with 39.1

per 1,000).

Figure 4.37. Obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration per 1,000 vaginal deliveries without

instrument assistance, by race/ethnicity, stratified by area income, 2006

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient

Databases (SID) disparities analysis file, 2006.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Data were not

available for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Data are

adjusted for age, gender, and diagnosis-related group

clusters. Quartile income categories are used instead of the

NHDR’s usual descriptive categories because that is how data

are collected for this measure. Quartile 1 corresponds to the

lowest income quartile, and Quartile 4 corresponds to the

highest income quartile. Income categories are based on the

median household income of the ZIP Code of the patient’s

residence. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is designed

to provide national estimates using weighted records from a

sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the U.S.

resident population. 

u The rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was lower for all groups living in

communities in the lower income quartile communities compared with patients who lived in

communities in the highest income quartile (Quartile 4) (Figure 4.37).

u Within all income groups, the rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was lower for

Black women and Hispanic women compared with White women. The rate was highest for API

women.

National Healthcare 247 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

Rate

Black Hispanic

White

Quartile 1

(Lowest Income)

Quartile 2

Quartile 3

Quartile 4

(Highest Income)

API

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Total
Figure 4.38. Obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration per 1,000 vaginal deliveries without

instrument assistance, by race/ethnicity, stratified by insurance, 2006

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient

Databases (SID) disparities analysis file, 2006.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Data were not

available for American Indians and Alaska Natives and API

women with Medicare. Data are adjusted for age, gender, and

diagnosis-related group clusters. The HCUP SID disparities

analysis file is designed to provide national estimates using

weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States

that have 66% of the U.S. resident population. 

u Overall, the rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was lower for Medicarexiv (32.8

per 1,000), Medicaid (28.7 per 1,000), and uninsured or self-pay (33.0 per 1,000) patients compared

with patients with private insurance (43.1 per 1,000) (Figure 4.38).

u Among women with private insurance, the rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration

was lower for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites (30.4 per 1,000 and 33.1 per 1,000, respectively,

compared with 44.6 per 1,000). The rate was highest for APIs (61.3 per 1,000).

u Among women with Medicare,xiv the rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was

lower for Blacks compared with Whites (14.1 per 1,000 compared with 37.8 per 1,000).

u Among women with Medicaid, the rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was lower

for Blacks compared with Whites (23.9 per 1,000 compared with 29.2 per 1,000).

u Among uninsured women, the rate of obstetric trauma with 3rd or 4th degree laceration was higher for

APIs and Hispanics compared with Whites (48.5 per 1,000 and 33.2 per 1,000, respectively, compared

with 30.3 per 1,000).

xiv In most cases, this population would consist of women who qualified for Medicare due to disability.

National Healthcare 248 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Women

Rate

Black Hispanic

White

Private

Insurance

Medicare

Medicaid

Uninsured/

Self-Pay

API

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Total
Children

Children (individuals under age 18) made up 24.6% of the U.S. population, or 73.7 million people, in 2006.32

Almost 40% of all children were members of racial and ethnic minority groups,51 and 17.6% of children lived

in families with incomes below the Federal poverty threshold.28 

Children who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups tend to face greater health risks. For

example, in 2003, Black children and AI/AN children had death rates about one and one-half to two times as

high as White children. In 2005, Black infants were more than twice as likely as White infants to die during

their first year.35 Life expectancy at birth was 78.3 years for White children and 73.2 years for Black

children, a difference of about 5 years.35

The NHDR tracks many measures relevant to children. Findings presented here highlight five quality

measures and one access measure of particular importance to children (for ages 2 months to 19 years,

depending on the measure):

Component of health care need Measure

Prevention Early childhood vaccinations, counseling about healthy eating, 

dental visits

Patient safety Accidental puncture or laceration during procedure

Timeliness Admissions with perforated appendix 

Access to care Health insurance

Quality of Health Care

Prevention: Early Childhood Vaccinations

Childhood vaccinations protect recipients from illness and disability and protect others in the community.

Vaccinations are important for reducing mortality and morbidity in populations.

National Healthcare 249 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children
Figure 4.39. Composite measure: Children ages 19-35 months who received all recommended

vaccines, by race, ethnicity, and family income, 2000-2007 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics and National Center for Immunization

and Respiratory Diseases, National Immunization Survey, 2000-

2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 19-35

months.

Note: Recommended vaccines for children ages 19-35 months

are based on the Healthy People 2010 objective and do not

include varicella vaccine or vaccines added to the recommended

schedule after 1998 for children up to 35 months of age. Racial

categories changed in 2000 and may not be comparable with

those used for previous years. More information can be found in

the Measure Specifications appendix.

National Healthcare 250 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

50

60

70

80

90

100 White

Black

Asian

AI/AN

2002

Percent 

Z

0

2000

2001

2004

Healthy People 2010

Target: 80%

>1 Race

2003

2005

2006

2007

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent 

0

Z

Healthy People 2010

Target: 80%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

50

60

70

80

90

100 Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

Percent 

0

Z

Healthy People 2010

Target: 80%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
u From 2000 to 2007, the gap between Blacks and Whites who received all recommended vaccines

decreased (Figure 4.39). However, in 2007, Black children were less likely than White children to

receive all recommended vaccines (77.5% compared with 80.9%).

u The gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of children who received all

recommended vaccines decreased during this time. In 2007, there were no statistically significant

differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites.

u In 2007, the percentage of children who received all recommended vaccines was lower for children

from poor (76.5%) and near-poor (77.8%) families than for children from high-income families

(84.1%).

u Nationally, vaccination coverage levels achieved the Healthy People 2010 objective of 80% of children

receiving all recommended vaccines for several groups: White (80.9%), AI/AN (83.5%), non-Hispanic

White (81%), middle income (81.8%), and high income (84.1%).

Prevention: Counseling About Healthy Eating

Unhealthy eating and lack of physical activity contribute to overweight children. Professional societies

recommend routine promotion of healthy eating among children, which may help them form eating habits

that will last into adulthood, contributing to better long-term health. 

Figure 4.40. Children ages 2-17 whose parents/guardians reported advice from a doctor or other health

provider about healthy eating, by race, ethnicity, and family income, 2002-2006

National Healthcare 251 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

25

35

45

55

65

75

White

Black

Asian

2002

Percent 

Z

0

2003

2004

2005

Total

2006

25

35

45

55

65

75 Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

Percent 

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 2-17.

Note: Data for American Indians and Alaska Natives and Native

Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders did not meet criteria for

statistical reliability.

u In 2006, the percentage of children whose parents or guardians reported advice from a health provider

about healthy eating was significantly lower for children from poor (54.2%), near-poor (51.5%), and

middle-income (55.0%) families than for children from high-income families (62.9%) (Figure 4.40). 

u The percentage of children whose parents or guardians reported advice from a health provider about

healthy eating was significantly lower for uninsured children (41.4%) and children with public

insurance (53.6%) than for children with private insurance (59.1%; data not shown). 

u There were no statistically significant differences by race and ethnicity.

National Healthcare 252 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

25

35

45

55

65

75

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

0

Z

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006
Prevention: Dental Visits

Regular dental visits promote prevention, early diagnosis, and optimal treatment of craniofacial diseases and

conditions.52 To improve overall oral health, Healthy People 2010 set a goal of increasing the annual

percentage of people age 2 and over using the oral health system from 44% to 56%.

Figure 4.41. Children ages 2-17 with a dental visit in the past year, by race, ethnicity, and family income,

2004-2006

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical

Expenditure Panel Survey, 2004-2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 2-17.

National Healthcare 253 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Total

2004

2005

Percent

2006

White

Black

Asian

>1 Race

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2006

Percent 

2004

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent 

Low Income High Income

Poor Middle Income

2004

2005

2006

Healthy People 2010

Target: 56%
u From 2004 to 2006, no statistically significant changes were seen in the percentage of children with a

dental visit in the past year in any group (Figure 4.41).

u In 2006, the percentage of children with a dental visit in the past year was lower for Blacks than for

Whites (41.8% compared with 54.6%) and for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (38.6%

compared with 59.7%).

u The percentage of children with a dental visit in the past year was lower for children from poor

(37.1%), near-poor (41.6%), and middle-income (53.0%) families compared with children from highincome families (68.4%). 

u The percentage of children with a dental visit in the past year was lower for children with public

insurance (41.4%) and for uninsured children (27.9%) compared with children with private insurance

(59.6%; data not shown).

National Healthcare 254 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children
Patient Safety: Accidental Puncture or Laceration

Adverse events occurring during surgical procedures include unintended cuts, punctures, perforations, and

lacerations. Such events may be more likely in children, whose smaller anatomy may make avoiding such

events more technically challenging. Prior analyses of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data

from 2000 using earlier versions of the present indicator identified a cumulative incidence of 1 accidental

puncture or laceration per 1,000 pediatric discharges. These incidents produced significant associated

increases in length of stay, billed charges, and inpatient mortality.53

To the degree that adverse events can be avoided by proper surgical technique, variations in their occurrence

may be a marker of differences in the quality of pediatric surgical care. However, such rates are best

interpreted in light of the risks associated with medical or surgical discharges of varying complexity. 

Figure 4.42. Accidental puncture or laceration during procedure per 1,000 discharges, children under

age 18, by race/ethnicity and income, 2006

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient Databases (SID)

disparities analysis file, 2006. 

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is designed to provide national estimates on

disparities using weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that have 66% of the U.S. resident population. Income

categories are based on the median income of the ZIP Code of the patient’s residence. These data are adjusted for age, gender,

diagnosis-related group, and comorbidities. Rates include medical or surgical discharges only. 

u Black children (0.77 per 1,000 discharges) and Hispanic children (0.71 per 1,000 discharges) had lower

rates of accidental puncture or laceration than White children (0.89 per 1,000 discharges). API children

had higher rates than Whites (1.16 per 1,000 discharges compared with 0.89 per 1,000 discharges;

Figure 4.42).

u There were no significant differences by income.

National Healthcare 255 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

White

Rate

Black

Hispanic

API

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Total

1.4

2nd Quartile

Rate

3rd Quartile

4th Quartile (Highest)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

!st Quartile (Lowest)

1.4
Timeliness: Admissions With Perforated Appendix

Appendiceal perforation or rupture may increase risks of internal organ damage, female infertility, and even

death.54 Research suggests that there is little time lag in the United States between the correct diagnosis of

appendicitis and surgical intervention.55 Therefore, perforated appendix in children may better reflect delayed

symptom recognition by parents or providers. In addition, patients may face logistical, financial, racial,

sociocultural, and other barriers to timely access to acute care for a time-dependent illness.56 Prior studies

based on data from HCUP and other sources have identified minority status, lower income, lack of private

insurance, and admission from a non-emergency department source as risk factors for discharge with

appendiceal rupture.57

Figure 4.43. Perforated appendixes per 1,000 admissions with appendicitis, ages 1-17, by race/ethnicity

and income, 2006 

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient Databases (SID)

disparities analysis file, 2006. 

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Rates are adjusted for age and gender. The HCUP SID disparities analysis file is

designed to provide national estimates on disparities using weighted records from a sample of hospitals from 25 States that have

66% of the U.S. resident population. 

u Among children with appendicitis, hospitalizations involving perforations were higher for Blacks (365.3

per 1,000 admissions), APIs (329.3 per 1,000 admissions), and Hispanics (344.5 per 1,000 admissions)

than for Whites (276.1 per 1,000 admissions) (Figure 4.43).

National Healthcare 256 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

White

Rate

Black

Hispanic

API

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Total

Rate 

Poor

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400
u Among children with appendicitis, hospitalizations involving perforations were higher for those living

in poor communities (337.1 per 1,000 admissions), low-income communities (317.8 per 1,000

admissions), and middle-income communities (301.9 per 1,000 admissions) than for those living in

high-income communities (268.5 per 1,000 admissions).

To distinguish between the effects of race/ethnicity and income on pediatric discharges with perforated

appendix, this measure is stratified by income level.

Figure 4.44. Perforated appendixes per 1,000 admissions with appendicitis, ages 1-17, by race/ethnicity,

stratified by income, 2006 

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare

Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), State Inpatient Databases

(SID) disparities analysis file, 2006. 

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic. Quartile income

categories are used instead of the NHDR’s usual descriptive

categories because that is how data are collected for this

measure. Quartile 1 corresponds to the lowest income quartile,

and Quartile 4 corresponds to the highest income quartile.

Income categories are based on the median household income of

the ZIP Code of the patient’s residence. The HCUP SID disparities

analysis file is designed to provide national estimates on

disparities using weighted records from a sample of hospitals from

25 States that have 66% of the U.S. resident population. These

data have been adjusted for age and gender.

u Hispanic children living in communities at every income level had higher rates of hospital discharges

with perforated appendix than Whites (Figure 4.44).

u Black children living in communities at every income level had higher rates of hospital discharges with

perforated appendix than Whites.

u API children living in communities in Quartile 1 had higher rates of hospital discharges with perforated

appendix than Whites (410.3 per 1,000 compared with 287.7 per 1,000 admissions).

National Healthcare 257 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

Rate

Black Hispanic

White

Quartile 1

(Lowest Income)

Quartile 2

Quartile 3

Quartile 4

(Highest Income)

API

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Total
Access to Health Care

Health Insurance

Insurance coverage is among the most important factors in access to health care. Special efforts have been

made to provide insurance coverage to children.58

Figure 4.45. Children with health insurance, by race, ethnicity, and family income, 1999-2007

National Healthcare 258 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Black AI/AN

>1 Race

2002

Percent 

Z

0

1999

2000

2004

Asian

2001

2003

2005

2006

2007

50

60

70

80

90

100 Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

2001

2002

2005

Percent 

2003

2004

0

Z

1999

2000

2006

2007
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey,

1999-2007.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age

18.

Note: Insurance status is determined at the time of interview.

Children are considered uninsured if they lack private health

insurance, public assistance (including the State Children’s Health

Insurance Program), Medicare, Medicaid, a State-sponsored

health plan, other government-sponsored program, or a military

health plan, or if their only coverage is through the Indian Health

Service. This measure reflects the percentage of children who

were covered by health insurance at the time of interview.

u In 2007, the percentage of children with health insurance was higher for Blacks than for Whites (93.8%

compared with 90.7%; Figure 4.45).

u In 2007, the percentage of children with health insurance was significantly lower for AI/AN children

than for White children (71.4% compared with 90.7%).

u From 1999 to 2007, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the percentage of children

with health insurance decreased.

u In 2007, the percentage of children with health insurance was significantly lower for Hispanic children

than for non-Hispanic White children (84.7% compared with 92.9%).

u In 2007, the percentage of children with health insurance was significantly lower for children in poor

(88.1%), near-poor (84.3%), and middle-income families (91.8%) than for children in high-income

families (97.8%).

National Healthcare 259 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Children

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001

2002

2005

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2003

0

Z

1999

2000

2004

2006

2007
Older Adults

In 2006, 37.3 million people age 65 and over lived in the United States.59 Furthermore, the percentage of the

population age 65 and over is swiftly increasing. People age 65 and over represented 12.4% of the

population in 2006 but are expected to grow to about 20% of the population by 2030.60 The past century has

seen significant increases in life expectancy; in 2007, 65-year-olds could expect to live an additional 18.7

years.59 Nonetheless, older adults face greater health care concerns than do younger populations. In 2006,

39.8% of noninstitutionalized older adults assessed their health as excellent or very good, compared with

65.1% of people ages 18-6461; most older adults have at least one chronic condition.

Older women outnumber older men by more than one-third.59 In addition, members of minority groups are

projected to represent more than 25% of the older population in 2030, up from about 16% in 2000.60 About

3.4 million older people lived below the poverty level in 2006, corresponding to a poverty rate of 9.4%.59

Another 2.2 million, or 6.2% of older people, were classified as near poor, with incomes between 100% and

125% of the Federal poverty level.59

The Medicare program provides core health insurance to nearly all older Americans and reduces many

financial barriers to acute and postacute care. The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and

Modernization Act of 2003 has added prescription drug and preventive benefits to Medicare and provides

extra financial help to older people with low incomes. Therefore, differences in access to and quality of

health care tend to be smaller among Medicare beneficiaries than among younger populations.

Surveys of the general population often do not include enough older people to examine racial, ethnic, or

socioeconomic differences in health care. The NHDR relies on data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary

Survey to examine disparities in access to and quality of care. Findings presented here highlight two quality

measures and one access measure of particular importance to the older population:

Component of health care need Measure

Prevention Influenza vaccination, vision screening

Access to care Delayed care due to cost

Quality of Health Care

Prevention: Influenza Vaccination

Influenza is responsible for significant morbidity and decreased productivity during outbreaks. Older adults

are at increased risk for complications from influenza infections. Vaccination is an effective strategy to

reduce illness and deaths due to influenza. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention recommend annual influenza vaccination of all older individuals.

National Healthcare 260 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Older Adults
Figure 4.46. Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who had an influenza vaccination in the last winter,

by race, ethnicity, and income, 2002-2005 

Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or

Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare

Current Beneficiary Survey, 2002-2005.

Denominator: Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over living in

the community.

National Healthcare 261 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Older Adults

50

60

70

80

90

100

White

Black

API

AI/AN

2004

Percent 

Z

0

2002

2003

2005

Total

Healthy People 2010

Target: 90%

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

0

Z

2002

2003

2005

Healthy People 2010

Target: 90%

50

60

70

80

90

100 Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

2004

Percent 

2005

0

Z

2002

2003

Healthy People 2010

Target: 90%
u From 2002 to 2005, the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over with an influenza

vaccination in the last winter decreased overall from 68.9% to 64.6% (Figure 4.46).

u From 2002 to 2005, the gap between Blacks and Whites remained the same. In 2005, the percentage

was significantly lower for Blacks than for Whites (49.9% compared with 66.3%).

u During this period, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites remained the same. In 2005,

the percentage was also significantly lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites (52.3%

compared with 67.1%).

u From 2002 to 2005, the gaps between poor, near-poor, and middle-income groups and high-income

groups remained the same. In 2005, the percentage was significantly lower for poor, near-poor, and

middle-income beneficiaries than for high-income beneficiaries (56.0%, 61.8%, and 65.5%,

respectively, compared with 70.8%).

u In 2005, no population group achieved the Healthy People 2010 target of 90% of older Americans

receiving influenza vaccination.

Prevention: Vision Screening

Visual impairment is a common and potentially serious problem among older people. Personal safety may

be compromised as risks of falls and car accidents increase. 

Figure 4.47. Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over who had an eye examination in the last 12 months,

by race, ethnicity, and income, 2002-2005 

National Healthcare 262 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Older Adults

25

35

45

55

65

75 White

Black

API

AI/AN

2004

Percent 

Z

0

2002

2003

2005

25

35

45

55

65

75 Non-Hispanic White Hispanic

2004

Percent 

2005

0

Z

2002

2003
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; API = Asian or

Pacific Islander.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare

Current Beneficiary Survey, 2002-2005.

Denominator: Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over living in

the community.

u From 2002 to 2005, the gap decreased between Blacks and Whites in the percentage of Medicare

beneficiaries age 65 and over with an eye exam in the past year. In 2005, there was no statistically

significant difference between Blacks and Whites (Figure 4.47, 61.8% compared with 63.3%). 

u During this period, there were no statistically significant changes or differences between Hispanics and

non-Hispanic Whites.

u During this period, the gap between poor, near-poor, and middle-income individuals and high-income

individuals remained the same. In 2005, poor, near-poor, and middle-income individuals were less

likely than high-income individuals to have had an eye exam in the past year (55.9%, 60.8%, and

63.7%, respectively, compared with 67.1%).

National Healthcare 263 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Older Adults

25

35

45

55

65

75

2004

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

0

Z

2002

2003

2005
Access to Care

Delayed Care Due to Cost

Timely delivery of appropriate health care has been shown to improve health care outcomes and reduce

health care costs. Timely receipt of care is especially important for the older population due to their often

increased medical needs. Delayed health care can lead to diagnosis at a more advanced disease stage and can

reduce opportunities for optimal treatment.xv

Figure 4.48. Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over with delayed care due to cost, by race, ethnicity,

and income, 2002-2006

xv In this measure, delayed care due to cost is self-reported by patients.

National Healthcare 264 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Older Adults

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

White

Black

2002

2006

Percent 

2003

2004

2005

Total

AI/AN

>1 Race

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

2002

2006

Percent 

2003

2004

2005
Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare

Current Beneficiary Survey, 2002-2006.

Denominator: Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and over living in

the community.

Note: Total was unavailable for 2003. Data for Asians and for

2002-2004 for AI/ANs were statistically unreliable.

u In 2006, Black older adults and older adults of multiple race were more likely than White older adults

to delay care due to cost (7.4% and 9.2%, respectively, compared with 5.5%; Figure 4.48).

u In 2006, the percentage delaying care was significantly higher for poor (8.8%), near-poor (7.6%), and

middle-income (5.4%) beneficiaries than for high-income beneficiaries (2.0%).

National Healthcare 265 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Older Adults

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2003

2004

Percent 

Near Poor High Income

Poor Middle Income

2002

2005

2006
Residents of Rural Areas

About one in five Americans lives in a nonmetropolitan area.62 Compared with their urban counterparts,

rural residents are more likely to be older, poor,63 and in fair or poor health and to have chronic conditions.62

Rural residents are less likely than their urban counterparts to receive recommended preventive services and

on average report fewer visits to health care providers.64

Although 20% of Americans live in rural areas,xvi only 9% of physicians in America practice in those

settings.65 Other important providers of health care in those settings include nurse practitioners, nurse

midwives, and physician assistants. A variety of programs deliver needed services in rural areas, such as the

National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program, IHS, State offices of rural health, rural health clinics,

and community health centers. Cost-based Medicare reimbursement incentives are also available for rural

health clinics, critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and Medicare-dependent hospitals and

physicians in health professional shortage areas.

Many rural residents depend on small rural hospitals for their care. There are approximately 2,000 rural

hospitals throughout the country,66 1,500 of which have 50 or fewer beds. Most of these hospitals are critical

access hospitals that have 25 or fewer beds. They face unique challenges due to their size and case mix.

During the 1980s, many were forced to close because of financia1 losses.67 Yet, more recently, finances of

small rural hospitals have improved and few closures have occurred since 2003.

Transportation needs are pronounced among rural residents, who must travel longer distances to reach health

care delivery sites. Of the nearly 1,000 “frontier counties”xvii in the Nation, most have limited health care

services and many do not have any.68

The NHDR tracks many measures of relevance to residents of rural areas. Findings presented here highlight

three quality measures and one access measure of particular importance to residents of rural areas, with

additional geographic data from metropolitan areas:

Component of health care need Measure

Outcome Heart attack mortality

Management Recommended services for diabetes

Timeliness Care for illness or injury as soon as wanted

Access to care Health insurance

xvi Many terms are used to refer to the continuum of geographic areas. For the 2000 census, the U.S. Census Bureau’s

classification of “rural” consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside urban areas and urban clusters.

The Census Bureau classified as “urban” all territory, population, and housing units located within (1) core census block

groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and (2) surrounding census blocks that

have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. xvii

“Frontier counties” have a population density of less than 7 people per square mile; thus, residents may have to travel long

distances for care.

National Healthcare 266 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas
In previous NHDRs, detailed geographic typologies were applied to two AHRQ databases—MEPS and

HCUP—to define variations in health care quality and access for a range of rural and urban locations. This

year, data from MEPS and HCUP are again presented. Federal definitions of micropolitan and noncore

statistical areas (not metropolitan or micropolitan areas) published in June 2003 are used.69 In addition,

Urban Influence Codes use a methodology developed by the National Center for Health Statistics to

subdivide metropolitan areas into large central and large fringe metropolitan areas.70 Thus, categories used in

this section of the NHDR may be defined as follows:

u Metropolitan (total): all metropolitan areas.

u Large central metropolitan statistical area: central counties in metropolitan area of 1 million or more

inhabitants.

u Large fringe metropolitan statistical area: outlying (suburban) counties in metropolitan area of 1 million

or more inhabitants.

u Medium metropolitan statistical area: counties in metropolitan area of 250,000 to fewer than 1,000,000

inhabitants.

u Small metropolitan statistical area: metropolitan area of 50,000 to fewer than 250,000 inhabitants.

u Nonmetropolitan (total): all nonmetropolitan areas.

u Micropolitan statistical area: counties with an urban cluster of at least 10,000 but fewer than 50,000

inhabitants.

u Noncore statistical area (rural): not metropolitan or micropolitan.

Urban-rural contrasts for measures from MEPS and HCUP compare residents of rural statistical areas

(including both micropolitan and noncore statistical areas) with residents of urban statistical areas (including

large central, large fringe, medium, and small metropolitan statistical areas). Sample sizes are often too

small to provide reliable estimates for noncore statistical areas, limiting the ability to assess disparities among

residents of these areas.

National Healthcare 267 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas
Quality of Health Care

Outcome: Heart Attack Mortality

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, responsible for

nearly 632,000 deaths in 2006.71 About 1.2 million heart attacks occur each year.72 Data on inpatient

hospital deaths for patients who are admitted for a heart attack (AMI) are presented. To distinguish the

effects of race/ethnicity on the AMI in-hospital mortality rate within urban and rural areas, race/ethnicity data

are stratified by urban and rural location of patient residence. 

Figure 4.49. Deaths per 1,000 adult admissions with acute myocardial infarction as principal diagnosis,

by race/ethnicity and geographic location, 2006

Large Central Metropolitan = central counties in

metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Large Fringe Metropolitan = outlying (suburban)

counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Medium Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan

areas of 250,000-999,999 inhabitants.

Small Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan

areas of 50,000-249,999 inhabitants.

Micropolitan = counties in an area with an urban

cluster of 10,000-49,999 inhabitants.

Noncore = <10,000 inhabitants.

Key: API = Asian or Pacific Islander.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project

(HCUP) State Inpatient Databases (SID) disparities

analysis file, 2006. 

Denominator: Adults age 18 and over hospitalized

for heart attack in community hospitals.

Note: White, Black, and API are non-Hispanic

groups. These data are adjusted for age, gender,

and all patient refined-diagnosis related group. Data

for APIs in small metropolitan areas did not meet

criteria for statistical reliability, data quality, or

confidentiality. The HCUP SID disparities analysis

file is designed to provide national estimates using

weighted records from a sample of hospitals from

25 States that have 66% of the U.S. resident

population.

u The overall heart attack death rate was significantly higher for people admitted to hospitals in noncore

areas (82.0 per 1,000 AMI admissions) than for people living in large central metropolitan areas or

small metropolitan areas (69.6 per 1,000 admissions and 78.6 per 1,000 admissions, respectively; Figure

4.49).

u The overall rate was also significantly higher for people admitted to hospitals in micropolitan areas than

for people living in large central metropolitan areas (85.8 per 1,000 admissions compared with 69.6 per

1,000 admissions). 

National Healthcare 268 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas

Rate

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

White

Black

API

Total Hispanic

Noncore

0

Z

20

60

100

140

180

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Large Central Metropolitan
u In large central metropolitan areas and large fringe metropolitan areas, the heart attack death rate was

lower for Blacks than for Whites (58.8 per 1,000 admissions compared with 70.6 per 1,000 admissions

in large central metropolitan areas and 53.2 per 1,000 admissions compared with 67.3 per 1,000

admissions in large fringe metropolitan areas). The rate was higher for APIs than for Whites (81.7 per

1,000 admissions compared with 70.6 per 1,000 admissions in large central metropolitan areas and 91.7

per 1,000 admissions compared with 67.3 per 1,000 admissions in large fringe metropolitan areas). 

u In medium metropolitan areas, the heart attack death rate was higher for APIs than for Whites (99.3 per

1,000 admissions compared with 70.8 per 1,000 admissions).

u In small metropolitan areas, the heart attack death rate was higher for Hispanics than for Whites (97.2

per 1,000 admissions compared with 77.9 per 1,000 admissions).

u There were no statistically significant differences by race or ethnicity in micropolitan areas.

u In noncore areas, the heart attack death rate was lower for Blacks (68.6 per 1,000 admissions) and

Hispanics (62.0 per 1,000 admissions) than for Whites (83.6 per 1,000 admissions).

National Healthcare 269 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas
Management: Recommended Services for Diabetes

The NHDR presents a composite measurexviii that tracks receipt of three recommended services for effective

management of diabetes: hemoglobin A1c testing, eye examination, and foot examination in the past year.

Figure 4.50. Composite measure: Adults age 40 and over with diagnosed diabetes who received three

recommended services for diabetes in the calendar year (hemoglobin A1c measurement, eye

examination, and foot examination), by geographic location, stratified by race, ethnicity, income, and

education, 2006

xviii For more information on composite measures, refer to Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods.

National Healthcare 270 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

White Black

Total

Noncore

0

15

30

45

60

75

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Metropolitan (Total)

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

0

15

30

45

60

75

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Metropolitan (Total)
Large Central Metropolitan = central counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Large Fringe Metropolitan = outlying (suburban) counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Medium Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan areas of 250,000-999,999 inhabitants.

Small Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan areas of 50,000-249,999 inhabitants.

Micropolitan = counties in an area with an urban cluster of 10,000-49,999 inhabitants.

Noncore = <10,000 inhabitants.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 40 and over.

Note: Recommended services for diabetes are (1) hemoglobin A1c testing, (2) dilated eye examination, and (3) foot examination. Due

to small sample sizes, estimates by race, ethnicity, income, or education could not be provided in all areas; these data were only

available for metropolitan (total) and large central metropolitan. 

u In 2006, the percentage of diabetes patients who received all three recommended services for diabetes

was lower for patients in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas (32.0% compared with

43.5%; Figure 4.50).

u In metropolitan areas (total), there were significant ethnic, income, and educational disparities.

Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to receive recommended care for diabetes (32.2%

compared with 48.4%). Poor (36.4%) and near-poor (32.7%) individuals were less likely than highincome individuals (47.7%) to receive recommended care for diabetes. Individuals with less than a

high school education were less likely than individuals with some college education to receive

recommended care for diabetes (35.2% compared with 47.2%).

National Healthcare 271 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas

Percent

Near Poor

Poor Middle Income

0

15

30

45

60

75

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Metropolitan (Total)

High Income

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Micropolitan

High School Grad

<High School

0

15

30

45

60

75

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Metropolitan (Total)

Some College
Timeliness: Care for Illness or Injury As Soon As Wanted

Timely delivery of appropriate care has been shown to improve health care outcomes and reduce health care

costs. In addition, when patients need or want care, having access to that care improves their health care

experience, which may further promote health.

Figure 4.51. Adults who needed care right away for an illness, injury, or condition in the last 12 months

who sometimes or never got care as soon as wanted, by geographic location, stratified by income and

education, 2006

Large Central Metropolitan = central counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Large Fringe Metropolitan = outlying (suburban) counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Medium Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan areas of 250,000-999,999 inhabitants.

Small Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan areas of 50,000-249,999 inhabitants.

Micropolitan = counties in an area with an urban cluster of 10,000-49,999 inhabitants.

Noncore = <10,000 inhabitants. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Data are not available for poor, middle-, and high-income groups in noncore areas or in small metropolitan areas. Data are not

available for the high-income group in micropolitan areas. 

National Healthcare 272 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Near Poor

Poor

Total

Noncore

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Metropolitan (Total)

Middle Income

High Income

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Noncore

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Metropolitan (Total)

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College
u There were no statistically significant differences between geographic areas in the overall percentage of

adults who sometimes or never got care for illness or injury as soon as wanted (Figure 4.51).

u In nonmetropolitan areas, poor (24.4%) and near-poor (20.0%) individuals were more likely than highincome individuals (10.8%) to report problems getting care for illness or injury as soon as wanted.

u Differences by education also were observed in nonmetropolitan areas. Individuals with less than a

high school education (22%) were more likely than individuals with some college education (12.5%) to

report problems getting care for illness or injury as soon as wanted.

u There were significant differences by income in metropolitan areas. Poor (22.7%), near-poor (20.4%),

and middle-income (16.2%) individuals were more likely than high-income (10.4%) individuals to

report problems getting care for illness or injury as soon as wanted. When further stratified into large

fringe, large central, medium, and small metropolitan areas, there were no statistically significant

differences between poor and near-poor groups and high-income groups.

u In small metropolitan areas, individuals with less than a high school education were more likely than

individuals with some college education to report problems getting care for illness or injury as soon as

wanted (17.8% for less than high school compared with 11.5%).

Access to Health Care

Health Insurance

Access to health care services is a prerequisite to receipt of care, yet many Americans still face barriers to

care. It has been observed that compared with urban residents, residents of rural areas are more likely to be

uninsured, and those who are insured are more likely to be individually insured.73 Furthermore, rural

residents with group insurance are more likely to have fewer benefits and higher out-of-pocket expenses,

suggesting a higher rate of underinsurance. Data for prolonged periods of uninsurance (no insurance

coverage for a full year) are presented.

National Healthcare 273 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas
Figure 4.52. Adults under age 65 who were uninsured all year, by geographic location, stratified by race,

ethnicity, income, and education, 2006

National Healthcare 274 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Total

Noncore

0

10

20

30

40

50

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Metropolitan (Total)

White

Black

Asian

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Non-Hispanic White

Noncore

0

10

20

30

40

50

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Metropolitan (Total)

Hispanic

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Noncore

0

10

20

30

40

50

Large Central Metropolitan

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Metropolitan (Total)

Nonmetropolitan (Total)

Poor

Near Poor

Middle Income

High Income

Percent

Medium Metropolitan

Small Metropolitan

Micropolitan

Noncore

0

10

20

30

40

50

Large Fringe Metropolitan

Large Central Metropolitan

Metropolitan (Total)

<High School 

High School Grad

Some College

Nonmetropolitan (Total)
Large Central Metropolitan = central counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Large Fringe Metropolitan = outlying (suburban) counties in metropolitan areas ≥1 million inhabitants.

Medium Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan areas of 250,000-999,999 inhabitants.

Small Metropolitan = counties in metropolitan areas of 50,000-249,999 inhabitants.

Micropolitan = counties in an area with an urban cluster of 10,000-49,999 inhabitants.

Noncore = <10,000 inhabitants. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 18 and over.

Note: Estimates for Asians in medium metropolitan, small metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore areas did not

meet criteria for statistical reliability and are not reported here.

Nonmetropolitan areas

u Noncore areas had a higher percentage of adults who were uninsured than large fringe metropolitan

areas (16.9% compared with 11.6%; Figure 4.52).

u In noncore areas, there were significant ethnic, income, and education disparities. Hispanics were more

than twice as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year (35.7% compared with 14.8%).

Poor, near-poor, and middle-income individuals (21.6%, 21.1%, and 18.0%, respectively) were more

likely than high-income individuals (5.4%) to be uninsured all year. In addition, individuals with less

than a high school education (35.7%) and high school graduates (23%) were more likely than

individuals with some college education (14.8%) to be uninsured all year.

u In micropolitan areas, there were significant racial, ethnic, income, and education disparities. Blacks

were more likely than Whites to be uninsured all year (20.0% compared with 14.4%). Hispanics were

more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year (28.2% compared with 13%).

Poor (22.3%), near-poor (24.2%), and middle-income individuals (14.5%) were more likely than highincome individuals (5.7%) to be uninsured all year. Individuals with less than a high school education

(34.0%) and high school graduates (18.6%) were more likely than individuals with some college

education (11.0%) to be uninsured all year.

Metropolitan areas

u There were statistically significant differences within metropolitan areas in the percentage of adults

under age 65 who were uninsured all year. Among metropolitan areas, the lowest percentage of

uninsured overall was in large fringe metropolitan areas (11.6%; Figure 4.52); the highest percentage

was in large central metropolitan areas (17.4%). 

u Large central metropolitan areas had significant racial, ethnic, income, and education disparities. In

these areas, Blacks were less likely than Whites to be uninsured all year (14.4% compared with 18.6%).

However, Hispanics were almost three times as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year

(29.7% compared with 11.4%). Poor (26.8%), near-poor (25.6%), and middle-income individuals

(19%) were more likely than high-income individuals (8.2%) to be uninsured all year. Individuals with

less than a high school education (38%) and high school graduates (25.4%) were more likely than

individuals with some college education (12.5%) to be uninsured all year.

National Healthcare 275 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas
u Large fringe metropolitan areas also had significant ethnic, income, and education disparities. In these

areas, Hispanics were almost four times as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year

(30.3% compared with 8.2%). Poor (24%), near-poor (27.3%), and middle-income individuals (14.3%)

were more likely than high-income individuals (4.2%) to be uninsured all year. Individuals with less

than a high school education (27.4%) and high school graduates (19%) were more likely than

individuals with some college education (7.3%) to be uninsured all year.

u Medium metropolitan areas had significant ethnic, income, and education disparities as well. In these

areas, Hispanics were more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year (24.7%

compared with 10.5%). Poor (21.4%), near-poor (21.8%), and middle-income individuals (13%) were

more likely than high-income individuals (5.1%) to be uninsured all year. Individuals with less than a

high school education (31.7%) and high school graduates (18.6%) were more likely than individuals

with some college education (8.4%) to be uninsured all year.

u Small metropolitan areas also had significant ethnic, income, and education disparities. In these areas,

Hispanics were almost twice as likely as non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year (21.2%

compared with 11.6%). Poor (19.6%), near-poor (24.3%), and middle-income individuals (12.2%)

were more likely than high-income individuals (5.2%) to be uninsured all year. Individuals with less

than a high school education (28.9%) and high school graduates (19.7%) were more likely than

individuals with some college education (10%) to be uninsured all year.

National Healthcare 276 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Residents of Rural Areas
Individuals With Disabilities or Special 

Health Care Needs

Individuals with disabilities or special health care needs include iindividuals who use nursing home and

home health care or end-of-life health care and children with special heath care needs (CSHCN). The

NHDR tracks many measures of relevance to individuals with special health care needs. 

In this year’s report, data on quality, access, and health care utilization are presented for adults with

disabilities. This is the third year in which the Adults With Disabilities section has been expanded to include

more analyses and additional data sources using a comparable measure of disability. This year the Adults

With Disabilities section uses MEPS data. In last year’s report, this section used data from the National

Health Interview Survey (NHIS). 

The appendix tables in this year’s report, as in last year’s report, present data categorized by activity

limitation for all NHIS and MEPS tables. Activity limitations was included as a stub variable starting in the

2007 report, where it was included in the MEPS appendix tables. The goal for future reports is to use NHIS,

MEPS, and additional data sources to include more information about individuals with disabilities. 

Component of health care need Measure

Access to care Delayed dental carexix

Health care utilization Dental visits

Access to care Underinsurance, financial burden of health care costs

In addition, findings for people who use nursing home care are presented in the section on Supportive and

Palliative Care in Chapter 2, Quality of Health Care. 

xix This is a supplemental measure of the NHDR measure set. 

National Healthcare 277 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 
Adults With Disabilities 

This is the third year in which the NHDR aims to include more information about individuals with

disabilities. To reach this goal, AHRQ convened a disabilities subgroup of the National Healthcare Quality

Report/National Healthcare Disparities Report Interagency Work Group. This subgroup received assistance

from the Interagency Subcommittee on Disability Statistics of the Interagency Committee on Disability

Research. 

The charge to the disabilities subgroup was to advise AHRQ on measures of disabilities from existing data

that could be used in the NHDR to track disparities in health care quality and access among individuals with

disabilities. The disability measures would need to be comparable across national surveys. For this initial

effort, the subgroup focused on measures for the adult population, a population for whom the most disability

survey data were available. 

Several ways of defining and measuring disability exist. Among the more common approaches are to

identify individuals who:

u Have problems with everyday functions, such as vision, hearing, communication, self-care, mobility,

learning, and behavior. 

u Have difficulty with complex activities, such as working.

u Meet the eligibility criteria for important income maintenance or training programs (e.g., Social

Security Disability Income or vocational rehabilitation). 

However, a particular challenge in reporting on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences related to

disability is that many data sources do not capture disability and, when they do collect such data, do not

collect the data in the same way. 

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)74 was adopted by the disabilities

subgroup as a model to guide the deliberations. The subgroup reviewed questions and response categories

for three national surveys—NHIS, MEPS, and the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey—to identify

inconsistencies and discrepancies in measurement of the major domains of disability in the ICF. 

For the 2009 NHDR, AHRQ is again using a broad, inclusive measure of disability. This definition is

intended to be consistent with statutory definitions of disability, such as the first criterion of the 1990

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (i.e., having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits

one or more major life activities75, 76) and Federal program definitions of disability based on the ADA. For

the purpose of the NHDR, people with disabilities are those with physical, sensory, and/or mental health

conditions that can be associated with a decrease in functioning in such day-to-day activities as bathing,

walking, doing everyday chores, and engaging in work or social activities. In displaying the data on

disability, paired measures are shown to preserve the qualitative aspects of the data: 

u Limitations in basic activities represent problems with mobility and other basic functioning at the

person level.

u Limitations in complex activities represent limitations encountered when the person, in interaction with

the environment, attempts to participate in community life. 

National Healthcare 278 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 
Limitations in basic activities include problems with mobility, self-care (activities of daily living, or ADLs),

domestic life (instrumental activities of daily living, or IADLs), and activities that depend on sensory

functioning (limited to people who are blind or deaf). Limitations in complex activities include limitations

experienced in work and in community, social, and civic life. The use of the subgroup’s recommendation of

these paired measures of basic and complex activity limitations is conceptually similar to the way others have

divided disability77 and is consistent with the ICF separation of activities and participation domains.74 These

two categories are not mutually exclusive; people may have limitations in basic activities and complex

activities. 

Access to Care: Adults Unable To Get or Delayed in 

Getting Needed Dental Care

As with other health care, patient perceptions of dental care need to include perceived difficulties or delays in

obtaining care and problems getting care as soon as wanted. Although patients may not always be able to

assess their need for dental care, problems getting care when patients perceive that they need it likely reflect

significant barriers to services. Dental care, unlike most other health care, is often not covered by health

insurance.

Figure 4.53. Adults age 18 and over who were unable to get or delayed in getting needed dental care by

race/ethnicity, family income, and education, stratified by activity limitation, 2006

Key: Basic = basic activity limitation (i.e., limitation in

mobility or other basic person-level functioning); complex =

complex activity limitation (i.e., limitation in ability to

participate in community life); neither=neither basic nor

complex activity limitation. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age

18 and over. 

National Healthcare 279 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 

<High School

Percent

Basic Complex

High School Grad

Hispanic

Poor

Middle Income

Low Income

High Income

Non-Hispanic White

Non-Hispanic Black

Total

0

5

10

15

20

At Least Some College

Neither
u Overall, adults with complex activity limitations were significantly more likely than adults with basic

activity limitations to report being unable to get or delayed in getting needed dental care (14.8%

compared with 11.3%; Figure 4.53). Those with basic activity limitations were significantly more

likely than those with neither limitation to report being unable to get or delayed in getting needed dental

care (11.3% compared with 6.4%). 

u The same pattern holds for non-Hispanic Whites and those with at least some college education.

Among adults with at least some college education, those with complex activity limitations were about

three times as likely as those with neither limitation to report being unable to get or delayed in getting

needed dental care (16.4% compared with 5.2%). 

u Among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults, those with basic and complex activity limitations were

significantly more likely to report being unable to get or delayed in getting needed dental care than

those with neither limitation. This pattern also held for all income groups, as well as for those with less

than a high school education and high school graduates. 

u Among adults with neither basic nor complex activity limitations, non-Hispanic Blacks (7.7%) were

significantly more likely than non-Hispanic Whites (6.1%) to report being unable to get or delayed in

getting needed dental care. 

u Within each of the three activity limitation groups (basic, complex, neither), poor, low-income, and

middle-income adults were significantly more likely than high-income adults to report being unable to

get or delayed in getting needed dental care. 

u Among adults with neither basic nor complex activity limitations, those with less than a high school

education (8.6%) and high school graduates (7.3%) were significantly more likely than those with at

least some college education (5.2%) to report being unable to get or delayed in getting needed dental

care. 

National Healthcare 280 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 
Health Care Utilization: Dental Visits

Regular dental visits promote prevention, early diagnosis, and optimal treatment of oral diseases and

conditions. Failure to visit the dentist can result in delayed diagnosis, compromised health overall, and,

occasionally, even death.78

Figure 4.54. Adults age 18 and over who had a dental visit in the calendar year, by race, ethnicity, family

income, and education, stratified by activity limitation, 2006

Key: Basic = basic activity limitation (i.e., limitation in

mobility or other basic person-level functioning); complex =

complex activity limitation (i.e., limitation in ability to

participate in community life); neither = neither basic nor

complex activity limitation. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population age

18 and over. 

u Overall, adults with complex activity limitations were significantly less likely than those with basic

activity limitations to have had a dental visit in the calendar year (34.5% compared with 38.4%; Figure

4.54). Those with basic activity limitations were significantly less likely than those with neither

limitation to have had a dental visit in the calendar year (38.4% compared with 43.3%). The same

pattern holds for Whites. 

u Among Black, non-Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black adults, those with basic and complex

activity limitations were significantly less likely than those with neither limitation to have had a dental

visit in the calendar year. 

u Differences in dental visits by activity limitation status were not statistically significant within any of

the income groups (poor, low, middle, and high). 

u Among adults with at least some college education, those with complex activity limitations were

significantly less likely than those with neither limitation to have had a dental visit in the calendar year

(48.2% compared with 53.5%). 

National Healthcare 281 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 

Percent

Complex

Basic

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Poor

Middle Income

Low Income

High Income

Total

White

Black

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Non-Hispanic Black

Neither

High School Grad

<High School 

At Least Some College
u Within each of the three activity limitation groups, Black adults were significantly less likely than

White adults to have had a dental visit. Non-Hispanic Black adults and Hispanic adults were

significantly less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have had a dental visit. 

u Within each of the three activity limitation groups, poor, low-income, and middle-income adults were

significantly less likely to have had a dental visit than high-income adults. Similarly, within each

activity limitation group, those with less than a high school education and high school graduates were

significantly less likely than those with at least some college education to have had a dental visit. 

National Healthcare 282 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 
Access to Health Care: Underinsurance 

Private health insurance does not always protect individuals from the high cost of medical care. Even with

private health insurance, a person may be underinsured. For example, a family’s out-of-pocket medical

expenses excluding premiums may be greater than 10% of total family income. Having high out-of-pocket

medical expenses may directly affect access to needed medical and preventive care.15, 16

Figure 4.55. Adults ages 18-64 with private insurance whose family’s out-of-pocket medical expenses

excluding premiums were more than 10% of total family income, by race, ethnicity, family income, and

education, stratified by activity limitation, 2006

Key: Basic = basic activity limitation (i.e., limitation in

mobility or other basic person-level functioning); complex =

complex activity limitation (i.e., limitation in ability to

participate in community life); neither = neither basic nor

complex activity limitation. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages

18-64. 

Note: Estimates for Blacks, non-Hispanic Blacks, lowincome people, and people with less than a high school

education with complex activity limitations, Hispanics and

poor people with basic or complex activity limitations, and

high-income people with basic activity limitations did not

meet criteria for statistical reliability.

u Of adults ages 18-64 with private health insurance, people with complex activity limitations were more

likely to be underinsured than those with basic activity limitations (21.2% compared with 12.4%;

Figure 4.55). People with basic activity limitations (12.4%) were more likely to be underinsured than

those with neither limitation (4.4%). 

u This same pattern holds for Whites, non-Hispanic Whites, and people with at least some college

education. 

u Among Black, non-Hispanic Black, and low-income people and people with less than a high school

education, those with basic activity limitations were significantly more likely to be underinsured than

those with neither basic nor complex activity limitations. Among middle-income people and high

school graduates, those with basic or complex activity limitations were significantly more likely to be

underinsured than those with neither limitation. 

National Healthcare 283 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 

Percent

Complex

Basic

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Poor

Middle Income

Low Income

High Income

Total

White

Black

0

15

30

45

Non-Hispanic Black

Neither

High School Grad

<High School 

At Least Some College
u Among people with neither basic nor complex activity limitations, Whites were significantly more

likely than Blacks (4.6% compared with 2.9%) and non-Hispanic Whites were significantly more likely

than non-Hispanic Blacks (4.7% compared with 2.9%) to be underinsured. 

u Among people with neither basic nor complex activity limitations, those living in poor (42.8%), lowincome (9.4%), and middle-income (4.7%) families were more likely to be underinsured than those

living in high-income families (1.6%). The percentage of underinsured people among those with no

activity limitations who live in poor families was 27 times that of the percentage in high-income

families (42.8% compared with 1.6%). 

u Among people with basic activity limitations, those with less than a high school education were more

likely to be underinsured than those with at least some college education (20.0% compared with 9.2%).

This finding also was observed for people with neither basic nor complex activity limitations (less than

high school, 7.9%; at least some college education, 3.9%) 

National Healthcare 284 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 
Access to Health Care: Financial Burden of Health Care

Costs

High medical financial burden is defined as family out-of-pocket medical expenditures, including premiums,

exceeding 10% of total family income. This is a comprehensive and policy-relevant measure. Having high

medical financial burden may directly affect access to care.16

Figure 4.56. Adults ages 18-64 whose family out-of-pocket medical expenses, including premiums,

exceeded 10% of total family income, by race, ethnicity, family income, and education, stratified by

activity limitation, 2006

Key: Basic = basic activity limitation (i.e., limitation in

mobility or other basic person-level functioning); complex =

complex activity limitation (i.e., limitation in ability to

participate in community life); neither = neither basic nor

complex activity limitation. 

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006. 

Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages

18-64. 

u Overall, among adults ages 18-64, those with complex activity limitations were significantly more

likely to be living in families with high medical financial burden than those with basic activity

limitations (40.2% compared with 34.1%; Figure 4.56). Those with basic activity limitations were

significantly more likely to be living in families with high medical financial burden than those with

neither limitation (34.1% compared with 15.5%). 

u This same pattern holds for Whites, non-Hispanic Whites, and people with at least some college

education. 

u Among Black, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, poor, low-income, middle-income, and high-income

people, people with less than a high school education, and high school graduates, those with basic and

complex activity limitations were significantly more likely to be living in families with high medical

financial burden than those with neither limitation. 

National Healthcare 285 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 

Percent

Complex

Basic

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Poor

Middle Income

Low Income

High Income

Total

White

Black

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Non-Hispanic Black

Neither

High School Grad

<High School 

At Least Some College
u Among people with neither basic nor complex activity limitations, Whites were significantly more

likely than Blacks (16.1% compared with 12.8%) and non-Hispanic Whites were significantly more

likely than non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics (16.7% compared with 12.8% and 13.5%, respectively)

to be living in families with high medical financial burden. 

u Within each of the three activity limitation groups (basic, complex, neither), adults ages 18-64 living in

poor, low-income, or middle-income families were significantly more likely than those living in highincome families to be in families with high medical financial burden. For example, among those with

basic activity limitations, people living in poor families (49.0%) were about three times as likely to be

in families with high financial medical burden as those living in high-income families (16.4%). 

u Among people with basic activity limitations, those with less than a high school education and high

school graduates were more likely to be living in families with high medical financial burden than those

with at least some college education (38.7% and 38.7%, respectively, compared with 27.1%). This

finding also was observed among people with neither basic nor complex activity limitations (less than a

high school education, 17.3%; high school graduates, 17.6%; at least some college education, 13.9%). 

National Healthcare 286 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4 Individuals With Disabilities or Special Health Care Needs 
References

1. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2006. With chartbook on trends in the health of Americans.

Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

2. Population Estimates Program. Hispanic or Latino by race. No. T4-2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2007.

Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-state=dt&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-

mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T004_2007&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-

_lang=en. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

3. State and County QuickFacts (last revised March 23, 2007). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2007. Available at:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

4. Smedley B, Stith A, Nelson AR. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Institute of

Medicine, Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC:

National Academies Press; 2003.

5. Lillie-Blanton M, Rushing O, Ruiz S. Key facts: race, ethnicity, and medical care. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family

Foundation; 2003. Available at: http://www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/Key-Facts-Race-Ethnicity-Medical-CareChartbook.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

6. Collins K, Hughes D, Doty M, et al. Diverse communities, common concerns: assessing health care quality for minority

Americans. New York: Commonwealth Fund; 2002.

7. Revisions to the standards for the classification of Federal data on race and ethnicity Washington, DC: Office of Management

and Budget;1997. Fed Reg 1997 Oct 30;62(210):58782-58790. Available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

8. Barnes J, Bennett C. The Asian population: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2002. Available at:

www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-16.pdf. Accessed on August 13, 2009.

9. American FactFinder. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2009. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. Accessed on September 18, 2009.

10. Chen JY, Diamant AL, Kagawa-Singer M, et al. Disaggregating data on Asian and Pacific Islander women to assess cancer

screening. Am J Prev Med 2004 Aug;27(2):139-45.

11. Sohn L. The health and health status of older Korean Americans at the 100-year anniversary of Korean immigration. J Cross

Cult Gerontol 2004 Sep;19(3):203-19.

12. Balabis J, Pobutsky K, Kromer Baker C, et al. The burden of cardiovascular disease in Hawaii 2007. Honolulu: State of

Hawaii Department of Health; 2007.

13. Trans-HHS Cancer Health Disparities Progress Review Group. Making cancer health disparities history. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/chdprg/pdf/chdprg.pdf. Accessed on

April 23, 2009.

14. Tsark J. Evidence for reducing disparities in the community: Hawaii State Department of Health-Behavioral Risk Factor

Surveillance System. Honolulu: Hawaii Department of Heath; January 2008.

15. Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Meltzer DO. Patient-physician communication about out-of-pocket costs. JAMA 2003 Aug

20;290(7):953-8.

16. Banthin JS, Bernard DM. Changes in financial burdens for health care: national estimates for the population younger than 65

years, 1996 to 2003. JAMA 2006 Dec 13;296(22):2712-9.

17. Indian Health Service, Division of Program Statistics. Trends in Indian health, 2000-2001. Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office; 2004. 

18. Indian Health Service. Regional differences in Indian health, 2000-2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office;

2004. Available at: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps5091/2000-2001/2000-2001.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2008.

National Healthcare 287 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
19. Greenway K. Unpublished analysis based on Table 34, Service and Nonservice Population of IHS by State. Demographic

Statistics Team, Division of Program Statistics, Joan Pappalardo and Alan Friedman. Rockville, MD: Indian Health Service;

2009.

20. Broken promises: evaluating the Native American health care system. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights;

2004.

21. Facts for Features. Hispanic Heritage Month 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2007. Available at:

www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010327.html. Accessed on August

13, 2009.

22. Larsen L. The foreign-born population in the United States: 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2004. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf. Accessed on July 14, 2009.

23. Malone N, Baluja KF, Costanzo JM, et al. The foreign-born population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. C2-KBR-34. Washington,

DC: U.S. Census Bureau; December 2003. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-34.pdf. Accessed on

November 11, 2008.

24. Reported tuberculosis in the United States, 2006. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/surv2006/default.htm. Accessed on November 12, 2008.

25. Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to Federal financial assistance recipients

regarding Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination affecting limited English proficient persons. 68 Fed Reg

47311-23; August 8, 2003. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-08-08/html/03-20179.htm. Accessed on

April 24, 2009.

26. Shin H, Brun R. Language use and English-speaking ability: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2003. No.

C2KBR-29. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Accessed on November 12, 2008.

27. Morales LS, Elliott M, Weech-Maldonado R, et al. The impact of interpreters on parents' experiences with ambulatory care for

their children. Med Care Res Rev 2006 Feb;63(1):110-28.

28. Poverty thresholds 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html. Accessed on November 12, 2008.

29. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor B, et al. Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2006. U.S. Census

Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-233.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2007. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf. Accessed on November 12, 2008.

30. Adler NE, Newman K. Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002 MarApr;21(2):60-76.

31. Brown AF, Gross AG, Gutierrez PR, et al. Income-related differences in the use of evidence-based therapies in older persons

with diabetes mellitus in for-profit managed care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003 May;51(5):665-70.

32. 2006 American Community Survey, Table S0101. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2006. Available at:

factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S0101&-

ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-redoLog=false&-CONTEXT=st. Accessed on August 13, 2009.

33. Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050. Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau; 1996. No. P25-1130. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1130/p251130.pdf. Accessed on

November 13, 2008.

34. Spraggins R. Women and men in the United States: March 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2003. No. P20-

544. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-544.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2008.

35. Hoyert D, Kung H, Smith B. Deaths: preliminary data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2005 Feb 28;53(15):1-48. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2008.

36. Miniño A, Heron M, Murphy S, et al. Deaths: final data for 2004. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics;

2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/finaldeaths04/finaldeaths04.htm. Accessed on November 13, 2008.

National Healthcare 288 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
37. Health, United States, 2006. With chartbook on trends in the health of Americans with special feature on pain. Tables 57 and

61. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf. Accessed

on November 13, 2008.

38. National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, Office of Research on Women’s Health,. Women of color health data

book (3rd ed.); 2006. Available at: http://orwh.od.nih.gov/pubs/WomenofColor2006.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2008.

39. Annual social and economic supplement: Table POV01: age and sex of all people, family members and unrelated individuals

iterated by income-to-poverty ratio and race: 2006. Below 100% of poverty—all races. Washington, DC: U.S. Census

Bureau; 2006. Available at: http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/pov/new01_100_01.htm. Accessed on August 22, 2008.

40. Ogden C, Carroll M, McDowell M, et al. Obesity among adults in the United States—no statistically significant change since

2003–2004. NCHS Data Brief No.1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2007. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2008.

41. Overweight and obesity Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition and Physician Activity; 2008. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/. Accessed on May 8, 2006.

42. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in multiple risk factors for heart disease and stroke—United States, 2003.

MMWR 2005 Feb 11;54(5):113-7. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5405a1.htm.

43. Wang Y, Beydoun MA. The obesity epidemic in the United States—gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic

characteristics: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Epidemiol Rev 2007;29:6-28.

44. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Leading causes of death for American women (2006). Bethesda, MD: National

Institutes of Health; 2006. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/hearttruth/press/infograph_dressgraph.pdf. Accessed

on November 14, 2008.

45. Blomkalns AL, Chen AY, Hochman JS, et al. Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation

acute coronary syndromes: large-scale observations from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina

Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart

Association Guidelines) National Quality Improvement Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005 Mar 15;45(6):832-7.

46. Waldrop-Valverde D, Osborn CY, Rodriguez A, et al. Numeracy skills explain racial differences in HIV medication

management. AIDS Behav 2009 Aug 8 [epub ahead of print].

47. Phillips RL, Proser M, Green LA, et al. The importance of having health insurance and a usual source of care. Policy Studies

in Family Practice and Primary Care. The Robert Graham Center; 2004. Available at: http://www.grahamcenter.org/online/graham/home/publications/onepagers/2004/op29-importance-insurance.html. Accessed on November 11,

2008.

48. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: final data for 2006. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics;

2009. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf. Accessed on March 10, 2009.

49. Schwartz N, Seubert DE, Mierlak J, et al. Predictors of severe perineal lacerations in Chinese women. J Perinat Med

2009;37(2):109-13.

50. Kudish B, Sokol RJ, Kruger M. Trends in major modifiable risk factors for severe perineal trauma, 1996-2006. Int J Gynaecol

Obstet 2008 Aug;102(2):165-70.

51. Hobbs F, Stoops N. Demographic trends in the 20th century. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2002. No. CENSR-4.

Available at: www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf. Accessed on August 17, 2009.

52. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office; 2000. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/. Accessed on August 17, 2009.

53. Miller MR, Zhan C. Pediatric patient safety in hospitals: a national picture in 2000. Pediatrics 2004 Jun;113(6):1741-6.

54. Silen W, Cope Z. Cope’s early diagnosis of the acute abdomen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1987.

55. Nelson DS, Bateman B, Bolte RG. Appendiceal perforation in children diagnosed in a pediatric emergency department.

Pediatr Emerg Care 2000 Aug;16(4):233-7.

National Healthcare 289 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
56. Bickell NA, Siu AL. Why do delays in treatment occur? Lessons learned from ruptured appendicitis. Hlth Serv Res 2001

Apr;36(1 Pt 1):1-5.

57. Jablonski KA, Guagliardo MF. Pediatric appendicitis rupture rate: a national indicator of disparities in health care access.

Popul Health Metr 2005 May 4;3(1):4.

58. Insititute of Medicine, Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance. Insuring America's health: principles and

recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.

59. Administration on Aging. A profile of older Americans: 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services; 2007. Available at: http://www.agingcarefl.org/aging/AOA-2007profile.pdf. Accessed on November 14, 2008.

60. Administration on Aging. Older population by age: 1900 to 2050. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. Available at: http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Aging_Statistics/future_growth/future_growth.aspx. Accessed on

November 14, 2008.

61. Pleis JR, Lucas JW. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2007. Vital Health Stat 10

2009 May(240):1-159.

62. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Future of Rural Health Care. Quality through collaboration: the future of rural health.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.

63. Ziller E, Coburn A, Loux S, et al. Health insurance coverage in rural America. Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on

Medicaid and the Uninsured; 2003. Publication No. 4093. Available at: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/4093.cfm. Accessed on

November 14, 2008.

64. Larson SL, Fleishman JA. Rural-urban differences in usual source of care and ambulatory service use: analyses of national

data using Urban Influence Codes. Med Care 2003 Jul;41(7 Suppl):III65-III74.

65. van Dis J. Where we live: health care in rural vs urban America. JAMA 2002 Jan 2;287(1):108.

66. Fast facts on U.S. hospitals [data from the 2005 annual survey]. Chicago: American Hospital Association; 2006. Available at:

http://www.aha.org/aha/resource-center/Statistics-and-Studies/fast-facts.html. Accessed on November 14, 2008.

67. Improving health care for rural populations. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality); 1996. No. AHCPR 96-P040. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/rural.htm.

Accessed on November 14, 2008.

68. Geography of frontier America: the view at the turn of the century. Sante Fe, NM: Frontier Education Center; 2000.

69. Revised definitions of metropolitan statistical areas, new definitions of micropolitan statistical areas and combined statistical

areas, and guidance on uses of the statistical definitions of these areas. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget;

2003. OMB Bulletin No. 03-04. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins/b03-04.html. Accessed on November

14, 2008.

70. 2006 NCHS urban-rural classification scheme for counties. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2009.

Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/urban_rural.htm. Accessed on August 5, 2009.

71. Heron M, Hoyert D, Murphy S, et al. Deaths: Final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;57(14).

72. Diseases and conditions index. Heart attack. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2007. Available at:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/HeartAttack/HeartAttack_WhatIs.html. Accessed on August 17, 2009.

73. Hartley D, Quam L, Lurie N. Urban and rural differences in health insurance and access to care. J Rural Hlth 1994

Spring;10(2):98-108.

74. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health ( ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;

2001. Available at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Accessed on August 27, 2009.

75. Office of the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General’s call to action to improve the health and wellness of people with

disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.

National Healthcare 290 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
76. LaPlante MP. The demographics of disability. Milbank Q 1991;69 Suppl 1-2:55-77.

77. Institute of Medicine. The future of disability in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.

78. Reisine S, Locker D. Social, psychological, and economic impacts of oral conditions and treatments. In: Cohen LK, Gift HC,

eds. Disease prevention and oral health promotion: socio-dental sciences in action. Copenhagen: Munksgaard and la

Fédération Dentaire Internationale; 1995.

National Healthcare 291 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
National Healthcare 292 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
National Healthcare 293 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4

List of Core Measures

Core Measures, Data Sources, and Availability for Select Groups

Measure Data source Black Hispanic Asian or API AI/AN Poor

Quality

Women age 40 and over who reported they

had a mammogram within the past 2 years NHIS 4 4 4 4 4

Breast cancer incidence per 100,000 women

age 40 and over diagnosed at advanced stage SEER 4 4 4 4 

Breast cancer deaths per 100,000 female 

population per year NVSS-M 4 4 4 4

Adults age 50 and over who received 

a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, proctoscopy, NHIS 4 4 4 4 4

or fecal occult blood test

Colorectal cancer diagnosed at advanced 

stage per 100,000 population age 50 and over SEER 4 4 4 4 

Colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 

population per year NVSS-M 4 4 4 4

Adults age 40 and over with diabetes

who received all three exams in the calender 

year: hemoglobin A1c measurement, MEPS 4 4 4

dialated eye examination, and foot 

examination

Adult dialysis patients registered on a

waiting list for transplantation USRDS 4 4 4 4

Hemodialysis patients with ESRD 

adequate dialysis CPMP 4 4 4 4

Hospital care for heart attack patients QIO 4 4 4 4 

Hospital care for heart failure patients QIO 4 4 4 4

Deaths per 1,000 adult hospital admissions

with acute myocardial infarction HCUP 4 4 4 4

New AIDS cases per 100,000 population CDC AIDS

ages 13 and over Surveillance 4 4 4 4

Children ages 19-35 months who received 

all recommended vaccines NIS 4 4 4 4 4

4 Indicates that reliable data on measure are available for this group and included in summary across measures of

quality and access for this group.

Key: API=Asian or Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native; Poor=individuals with household

incomes <100% of Federal poverty thresholds.
Core Measures, Data Sources, and Availability for Select Groups (continued)

Measure Data source Black Hispanic Asian or API AI/AN Poor

Children ages 2-17 for whom a health

provider gave advice about physical activity MEPS 4 4 4 4

Children ages 3-6 who had their vision 

checked by a health provider MEPS 4 4 4

Children ages 2-17 who received advice

about healthy eating MEPS 4 4 4 4

Children ages 2-17 who had a dental 

visit in the past year MEPS 4 4 4 4

Suicide deaths per 100,000 population NVSS-M 4 4 4 4

Adults with a major depressive episode

who received treatment for depression NSDUH 4 4 4

People age 12 and over who needed 

treatment for illicit drug use or alcohol NSDUH 4 4 4

problem and who received such treatment 

at a specialty facility

Adult smokers who received advice to quit

smoking MEPS 4 4 4

Adults with obesity who received

advice to exercise more MEPS 4 4 4

Adults with obesity who received

advice about healthy eating MEPS 4 4 4

Adults age 65 and over who ever received 

pneumococcal vaccination NHIS 4 4 4 4

Hospital care for pneumonia patients QIO 4 4 4 4

Patients with tuberculosis who 

completed a curative course of treatment CDC TB 4 4 4 4

within 1 year of initiation of treatment Surveillance 

Older women screened for osteoporosis MCBS 4 4 4 4 4

Long-stay nursing home residents with CMS

physical restraints MDS 4 4 4 4

High-risk long-stay nursing home CMS

residents with pressure sores MDS 4 4 4 4

Short-stay nursing home residents CMS

with pressure sores MDS 4 4 4 4

Adult home health care patients whose 

ability to walk or move around improved OASIS 4 4 4 4

Adult home health care patients who were 

admitted to the hospital OASIS 4 4 4 4

Adult surgery patients with postoperative 

pneumonia or venous thromboembolic MPSMS 4

event 

Adult surgery patients who received 

appropriate timing of antibiotics QIO 4 4 4 4 

4 Indicates that reliable data on measure are available for this group and included in summary across measures of

quality and access for this group.

Key: API=Asian or Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native; Poor=individuals with household

incomes <100% of Federal poverty thresholds.

National Healthcare 294 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
Core Measures, Data Sources, and Availability for Select Groups (continued)

Measure Data source Black Hispanic Asian or API AI/AN Poor

Bloodstream infections or mechanical 

adverse events associated with central MPSMS 4

venous catheter placements 

Deaths per 1,000 discharges following 

complications of care HCUP 4 4 4 4

Adults age 65 and over who received 

potentially inappropriate prescription MEPS 4 4 4

medications

Adults who sometimes or never got 

care for illness or injury as soon as wanted MEPS 4 4 4 4

Emergency department visits in which 

patients left without being seen NHAMCS 4 4

Adults whose health providers sometimes 

or never listened carefully, explained things MEPS 4 4 4 4

clearly, respected what they had to say, 

and spent enough time with them

Children whose health providers 

sometimes or never listened carefully, MEPS 4 4 4 4

explained things clearly, respected what 

they or their parents had to say, and spent 

enough time with them

Access

People under age 65 with health insurance NHIS 4 4 4 4 4

People under age 65 who were 

uninsured all year MEPS 4 4 4 4 4

People with a specific source of ongoing 

care NHIS 4 4 4 4 4

People with a usual primary 

care provider MEPS 4 4 4 4 4

People without a usual source of care who 

indicated a financial or insurance reason MEPS 4 4 4 4

for not having a source of care 

People who were unable to get or delayed MEPS 4 4 4

in getting needed care

4 Indicates that reliable data on measure are available for this group and included in summary across measures of

quality and access for this group.

Key: API=Asian or Pacific Islander; AI/AN=American Indian or Alaska Native; Poor=individuals with household

incomes <100% of Federal poverty thresholds.

National Healthcare 295 Disparities Report, 2009

Priority Populations

Chapter 4
U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

540 Gaither Road

Rockville, MD 20850

AHRQ Publication No. 10-0004

March 2010