Today in The (Baltimore) Sun, African-American studies professor Darrell J. Gaskin co-wrote an op-ed about the economic impact of racial health care disparities with Johns Hopkins public health professor Thomas A. LaVeist.
A study that we performed for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington-based think tank, found that, between 2003 and 2006, 30.6 percent of medical care expenditures for African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics were excess costs that were the result of inequities in the health of these groups. Between 2003 and 2006, the combined direct and indirect cost of health disparities in the United States was $1.24 trillion (in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars). This is more than the gross domestic product of India and equates to $309.3 billion annually lost to the economy.
In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released “Unequal Treatment,” a comprehensive report that documented extraordinary disparities in the quality of health care received by the various American racial and ethnic groups. Since then, health-care advocacy groups have relied on a compelling social justice argument to press policymakers to direct resources to efforts to address racial and ethnic inequities in health, with the premise that doing so is in keeping with American values.
Despite this gap, campus minority groups aren’t focusing much with the health care debate.
Also, last week, Towson University political scientist Richard Vatz wrote an op-ed sharply criticizing a poll released last week that painted a relatively rosy picture of Gov. Martin O’Malley’s chances for re-election. Here’s the harshest part:
Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies just produced a widely publicized Maryland poll whose omissions and ignoring of intensity crippled its validity. The poll claims, among other things, that Gov. Martin O’Malley leads former Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. in a hypothetical rematch based on the question, “If the November 2010 general election for governor were held today, for whom would you vote [between these two candidates].” The results, 49 percent for Mr. O’Malley and 38 percent for Mr. Ehrlich (with 13 percent undecided), are reported without any evident attempt to measure their intensity or stability. There was no mention of those criteria despite the overwhelming publicity advantage of the current governor – and the fact that Mr. Ehrlich is not currently a candidate.
The poll also asks respondents what is “the most important issue facing the state of Maryland today.” To give the Gonzalez pollsters some credit, this was ascertained by asking “open-ended questions” rather than providing predetermined categories. That adds somewhat to the validity of the answers. But what did they do with those answers? Nothing.
Of those polled, 62 percent said the most important issues related to the economic condition of the state: “economy,” “taxes” and “budget deficit.” There were, however, no questions in the poll relating to three important financial matters likely to be focused on in an Ehrlich-O’Malley rematch: the Democratic quashing of slots for five years, budgetary spending policy, and the 2006 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. 72 percent rate increase – all of which could affect voter choices in an election.
How intensely do supporters of Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Ehrlich feel regarding their support of these possible gubernatorial candidates? No attempt, apparently, is made to even consider this.