Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disallows healthcare discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. In the United States, individuals from different backgrounds usually receive unfair treatment in acquiring healthcare due to the vast perception based on these components. In this regard, different states have different laws and regulations, resulting in the different acquisition of healthcare among patients from such backgrounds. This essay compares and contrasts New York, California, and Texas’s regulations, policies, and laws regarding these requirements.
The New York Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prevents discrimination in various institutions, labor markets, and healthcare services. This Act extends protections to individuals beyond those offered by federal law and prohibits discrimination based on the three components. Hence, healthcare providers must adhere to these anti-discrimination measures, especially those that receive state funding. Most populations in New York are white Americans and Asian Americans (Zisk, 2020). This situation limits the height of discrimination with the implementation of this Act. Like New York, California State uses the FEHA Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, including healthcare services. This law extends protections to patients and other healthcare users beyond those provided by federal law, including Title VI (Trejo, 2022). Notably, the Act requires healthcare providers who receive state funding or operate within the State to adhere to strict anti-discrimination measures regarding race, ethnicity, and national origin. This situation encourages most healthcare systems in this State to offer equal treatment and care to all individuals, including those from marginalized areas. From the historical background, communities of other ethnic, racial, and national origin, such as Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and others, were subjected to healthcare discrimination, which ranged from denial to access quality care, leniency in obtaining emergency services, and others. Due to this Act, many individuals, especially those in marginalized communities, obtain better healthcare services, resulting in similar health outcomes compared to their counterparts.
Meanwhile, in Texas, the Health and Human Services Commission law (HHSC) addresses healthcare disparity by disallowing health practitioners from discriminating against the various components of inequality. HHSC is similar to Title VI but offers different perspectives for individuals to obtain healthcare compared to the federal (Zisk, 2020). Notably, the law allows equal access to healthcare services across these components but requires individuals from these origins to provide further documentation and clarification to receive healthcare services. This consideration subjects such category of people to a certain level of discrimination, leading to unequal access to healthcare.
Comparison between New York, California, and Texas State
Subsequently, the three States have regulations and laws that align with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which focuses on disallowing discrimination in healthcare based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. The FEHA and HHSC focus on strict adherence with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, resulting in considerable equality in dispensing healthcare services to individuals regardless of the various discrimination components stipulated by the Act (Bernstein, 2020). Indeed, these states require healthcare providers receiving state funding to focus on anti-discrimination measures and offer equitable care to all patients.
Contrast between California and Texas State
New York and California’s regulations, policies, and laws are broader than Texas’s. Based on this context, most individuals, especially those from other U.S. states, can quickly obtain medical and healthcare services without much hindrance. This aspect has led to noticeable changes in the health prospects of individuals from New York and California compared to those from Texas. This difference is due to the FEHA law, which offers comprehensive protection against discrimination in various sectors, including healthcare, and goes beyond the scope of federal law (Harris & Pamukcu, 2020). On the other hand, Texas has regulations and statutes addressing healthcare discrimination, but they are not comprehensive or expansive compared to California’s. Meaningfully, patients and other healthcare users from different sectors face difficulty accessing healthcare services. This situation further subjects more marginalized communities, such as people of color and others. As a result, there exists a significant gap in health concerns among such communities where there are higher incidences of low mortality rates, increases in causalities, and other impacts of low access to healthcare among these communities.
References
Bernstein, D. E. (2020). The Modern American Law of Race. S. Cal. L. Rev., 94, 171.https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/scal94&div=11&id=&page=
Harris, A. P., & Pamukcu, A. (2020). The Civil Rights of Health: A New Approach to Challenging Structural Inequality. UCLA L. Rev., 67, 758.https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/uclalr67&div=22&id=&page=
Trejo, M. L. (2022). Criminalization and Citizenship: How Racial Discrimination Affects U.S. Immigration Policy (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at El Paso).https://www.proquest.com/openview/683dffb1cd5132aca3761b58f44b086e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Zisk, N. L. (2020). The Future of Race-Conscious Admissions Programs and Why the Law Should Continue to Protect Them. NEULR, pp. 12, 56.https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/norester12&div=6&id=&page
write