HS 165 M2 A Comparative Analysis of State Regulations

• HS 165 M2 A Comparative Analysis of State Regulations

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Its Implications on Healthcare Discrimination: A Comparative Analysis of State Regulations

For this task, we will focus on the discrimination and healthcare disparities marginalized networks experience as a significant challenge. Our attention will focus on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of the United States of America, which deals with the issue of discrimination in the Availability and provision of healthcare. In addition, we will analyze three US states and their responses to Title VI and the language, race, ethnicity, and national origin in healthcare.

Understanding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Title VI and Healthcare Equality

The Civil Rights Title VI of the Act of 1964 paperwork forbids discrimination of any sort, including race, variety, or national origin, in any program or activity that gets Federal Government assistance. As far as healthcare is concerned, it protects access to healthcare services for any person, regardless of race or ethnicity (Shannon & Tracker, 2020). Title VI further states that healthcare providers receiving any federal assets must offer language services to LEP persons to ensure no barriers to effective communication and healthcare services.

Title VI encompasses federally funded programs and activities and prohibits discrimination against any person or group of people on the basis of race, color, or national origin (Bailey et al., 2023). Similarly, Title VI ensures that people of diverse races and ethnicities receive care unequivocally. This includes providing language assistance services to individuals with limited English proficiency and facilitating strong communication among patients and providers of such services.

State Regulations on Language Access in Healthcare

Language access laws are different across the states in the USA. For example, California’s Language Assistance Services Act obligates health providers to make language assistance services available to patients with limited English proficiency, such as interpreter and translator services. This regulation, indeed, observes the principles of Title VI by guaranteeing medical services and facilities to all people regardless of language barriers (Blake, 2020).

State regulations that ensure language access in healthcare and medical facilities enable those who can not speak English sufficiently to communicate with their practitioners and obtain medical assistance when needed. In most cases, these regulations make it obligatory for the healthcare institutions in question to either interpret or translate into English language patients who cannot express themselves proficiently in English. Compliance with these regulations enables medical practitioners to ease language barriers and deliver culturally oriented care to different patients.

• State Regulations on Language Access

Stake regulatory policies set forth interpreter and translator qualifications and some training channels to ensure the accuracy and confidentiality of communication between patients and relevant health providers. Several states also offer grants or compensation to healthcare institutions to implement language access policies, which ensure equal healthcare access to everyone, irrespective of their language competence (Harris & Pamukcu, 2020).

In general, language access policies of state governments supplement the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by catering to the specific needs of linguistically diverse members of the population, thereby enhancing the value and equity of health care services.

• Texas Language Access Policies

Similarly, Texas needs clear statutory measures that promote language access in primary health care delivery. Instead, The state relies on Title VI, a federal law, to ensure that patients with limited English proficiency are provided with language access. However, one state may implement and enforce federal laws differently from another, creating a gap in the provision of language assistance services.

Also, within the United States, the New York legal system affirms the existence of far-fetching language requirements aimed at ensuring language access in medical practice (Kirkland & Hyman, 2021). According to the New York State Department of Health, healthcare facilities must render language assistance services, including interpretation and translation, to patients with limited English proficiency.

Therefore, New York City undoubtedly has clear directives on language access within healthcare settings, which also enhances compliance with Title VI and increases the value of healthcare to various populations.

State Regulations on Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin Requirements in Healthcare

HS 165 M2 A Comparative Analysis of State Regulations in Health Care Individual states can also put different health regulations concerning race, ethnicity, and national origin requirements in place. For instance, Hawaii has initiated healthcare programs to eliminate the difference in access to healthcare services for Native Hawaiians and the Pacific Islands. The State Department of Health collaborates with local organizations to deliver culturally appropriate, locally specific care. This approach demonstrates the spirit of Title VI.

On the other hand, Mississippi has different African American social classes that have a grave disparity in health care. The state has initiated to combat these disparities, for example:(planned increases of access to primary care services for rural health and lower income primary care providers or expansion of Medicaid) in Mississippi (Knackert, 2021). Still, disparities get through because of structural barriers as well as enclosed fundamental racism within the healthcare system, enforcing factors restricting health equity amongst all populations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is vital in eradicating discrimination in the healthcare sector and enhancing health value among populations that have been oppressed. However, the application and the need for Title VI have different factors across states, thus creating access to healthcare compares by comparison and contrasts these variables through the respective state regulations and laws on language access discrimination factors, race, ethnicity, and national origin in a healthcare context, shows the gap, and proposes measures for promoting healthcare equity.

References

Bailey, M. J., Helgerman, T. E., & Stuart, B. A. (2023). How the 1963 Equal Pay Act and 1964 Civil Rights Act Shaped the Gender Gap in Pay (Working Paper 31332). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31332

Blake, V. K. (2020). Health Care Civil Rights under Medicare for All. Hastings Law Journal, 72, 773.

Harris, A. P., & Pamukcu, A. (2020). The Civil Rights of Health: A New Approach to Challenging Structural Inequality. UCLA Law Review, 67, 758.

Kirkland, A., & Hyman, M. (2021). Civil rights as patient experience: How healthcare organizations handle discrimination complaints. Law & Society Review, 55(2), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12554

Knackert, J. A. (2021). Necessary Coverage for Authentic Identity: How Bostock Made Title VII the Strongest Protection against Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Denial of Gender-Affirming Medical Care. Marquette Law Review, 105, 179.

Shannon, J. H., & Hunter, J. (2020). The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Beyond Race to Employment Discrimination Based on Sex: The “Three Letter Word” That Has Continued to Vex Society and The United States Supreme Court (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3649409). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3649409