top of page
Search

Graphic by Jackie No
Graphic by Jackie No

South Asian Americans face significant mental health challenges, yet systemic barriers within the U.S. healthcare system hinder their access to appropriate care. The South Asian American population is large, with about 5.4 million South Asians living in the United States today. South Asian Americans have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide than the general U.S. population but the lowest rates of seeking mental healthcare (5). Despite these alarming trends, U.S. mental health policies fail to address South Asian-specific needs due to a lack of research, cultural and linguistic barriers, and inaccessible insurance structures. This blog examines these challenges and proposes policy solutions to address these disparities. 


South Asian Mental Health in the U.S.: A Political Blind Spot


South Asians are one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups in the U.S. yet remain largely invisible in mental health research. Mental health studies rarely disaggregate data on South Asians, grouping them under the broad "Asian American" label, which lumps identity-specific issues under one large group and erases disparities (1). Federal mental health initiatives dedicate little effort to studying or addressing South Asian struggles, despite suicide being a leading cause of death among South Asian youth. High rates of anxiety, depression, and PTSD—often stemming from immigration stress, racism, and family pressures—persist, yet South Asians are the least likely to seek mental health care due to stigma and systemic barriers. The Affordable Care Act expanded mental health coverage, but failed to address racial and cultural disparities. State-level mental health programs, such as Medicaid expansions, often lack language-accessible services, further limiting care for South Asian communities.


The Insurance and Access Crisis


Many South Asian immigrants are on visa-dependent healthcare plans, limiting their access to affordable therapy. Even for those with insurance, therapy and psychiatric services are often not covered, making out-of-pocket costs ($100–$250 per session) prohibitively expensive. This disproportionately affects low-income South Asians, for whom mental health services become an unattainable luxury. (4). 


Lack of Culturally Competent Care


Many U.S. mental healthcare professionals lack cultural training on South Asian issues such as family honor and the “what will people say?” stigma, religious-based interpretations of mental health struggles, intergenerational trauma, migration stress, and the pressure of the "model minority" myth (2). Traditional beliefs within South Asian communities often view mental health issues as private matters, discouraging individuals from seeking external help (2). Additionally, the shortage of South Asian mental health professionals in the U.S. leaves many patients without therapists who understand their language, culture, or values.


The Political Path Forward: What Needs to Change?


The CDC and NIH have the responsibility to fund research on South Asian mental health disparities. This will be even more difficult due to the recent presidential executive orders to cut NIH fundings and federally funded research budget cuts. There is already a disparity in this research area, and with recent funding cuts, these disparities will unfortunately broaden. Mental health screenings should also be included in primary care for South Asian patients. This helps track and diagnose patients who need support in this field. 

State governments should also expand Medicaid to cover therapy for visa-holders and immigrants. Mental health clinics should provide services in South Asian languages to make therapy accessible. States with large South Asian populations should fund South Asian-focused mental health programs, setting funds aside for identity-specific mental health care services. 

South Asian advocacy groups should push for policy changes at the local and federal levels. There should also be training for non-South Asian therapists to understand South Asian-specific issues, just as there should be for other ethnic minority groups. We also have to break the stigma within South Asian communities through education by integrating mental health awareness into South Asian community centers, temples, mosques, and gurdwaras where multiple generations of South Asian populations can receive and share this knowledge. 


Conclusion


The U.S. healthcare system’s failure to recognize South Asian mental health needs is not just a cultural problem, it’s a policy failure. Without federal and state policy interventions, South Asians will continue to suffer silently, navigating a system that wasn’t built for them. South Asian communities must demand political action, from better data collection to culturally inclusive policies, to ensure that mental health care is truly accessible for this vast population.


Reviewed by Alec Vazquez-Kanhere


Resources

[1] Okazaki S, Lee CS, Prasai A, Chang DF, Yoo N. Disaggregating the data: Diversity of COVID-19 stressors, discrimination, and mental health among Asian American communities. Front Public Health. 2022 Oct 19;10:956076. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.956076. PMID: 36339147; PMCID: PMC9627279 

[2] Goel NJ, Thomas B, Boutté RL, Kaur B, Mazzeo SE. "What will people say?": Mental Health Stigmatization as a Barrier to Eating Disorder Treatment-Seeking for South Asian American Women. Asian Am J Psychol. 2023 Mar;14(1):96-113. doi: 10.1037/aap0000271. Epub 2022 Jan 10. PMID: 37283957; PMCID: PMC10241369.

 
 
 

Graphic by Nancy Chen
Graphic by Nancy Chen

Recent national polls reveal that 80% of adults believe the cost of prescribed medication is unreasonable [1]. The prices of many lifesaving drugs have skyrocketed; for instance, Mylan’s EpiPen, an emergency treatment for severe allergic reactions, has seen a 600% increase in cost [2]. Unfortunately, such cases are not uncommon as the U.S. government spends around $1,200 per person on prescription drugs—the highest amount globally and 2.56 times higher than comparable countries [1]. The majority of Americans want lower drug prices, yet pin-pointing the exact cause of price inflation is challenging due the complex nature of the problem.


Developing new drugs is a costly endeavor; it is estimated that creating a new drug therapy costs ​​$172.7 million on average and, when factoring in the cost of failure, this average rises to a staggering $515.8 million [4]. While it is a common belief that high drug costs are solely due to research and development (R&D) costs, many researchers contest this claim. A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical Association examined this idea by investigating the correlation between market prices and R&D costs. Analyzing 60 new therapies approved by the FDA from 2009 to 2018, the study found no association between the two variables, suggesting that variations in drug prices could not be explained by R&D investments [5]. However, it's essential to consider that there are two sides to this issue, and maintaining high profit margins might be a plausible explanation.


Another facet of the issue that has captured public attention is the role of middlemen between drug manufacturers and consumers, particularly Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). PBMs act as intermediaries, negotiating between drug companies, insurers, and pharmacies. Recently, Republicans, Democrats, and drug companies have all pointed fingers at PBMs for raising drug prices [6]. PBMs negotiate rebates from drug manufacturers on behalf of insurance plans and then secure a spot on an insurance plan’s formulary list, which outlines the drugs covered by the plan and suggests safe, cost-effective treatment options. In return for their role in promoting the drug, manufacturers provide rebates that eventually benefit the consumer [7]. However, PBMs keep a portion of these savings as their profit. Lawmakers are currently focusing on the lack of transparency in this process and its contribution to price hikes. PBMs take "a slice of the pie," which could be avoided in a more straightforward system. Furthermore, the PBM market is dominated by three major players—Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, and OptumRx—which control about 80% of the market, thereby stifling competition, according to critics [7].


Overall, the question of why prescription drugs are so expensive is complex. It is easy to point fingers, and the numerous actors in the system blame each other. Surveys of the American public have shown that 65% of Americans are extremely or very concerned about the issue. Additionally, 88% believe that lowering medication costs should be a top priority for candidates running for Congress [8]. This data illustrates that reducing prescription drug prices is a cross-party issue that would benefit the majority of Americans.


Reviewed by Abby Winslow


References

 
 
 

Graphic by Allison Chin
Graphic by Allison Chin

At the root of scientific discovery is the accumulation of thought, skill, and work of people and communities everywhere — research. However, regulating this multibillion-dollar industry requires both financial and ethical infrastructures. In terms of medical research, federal infrastructures like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other substructures, like Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exist to regulate these aspects of medical research. But, what happens if they lose funding? 


This question becomes increasingly relevant in the context of current events under the Trump administration. On February 7, a proposed policy was announced that made the NIH limit the indirect funding capacity for each research grant to 15% — meaning that, at maximum, only 15% of a grant a research lab obtains can go towards indirect funding [1]. Indirect funding goes towards the facilities that each lab uses, such as the building’s maintenance, other laboratory supplies, and salaries [2], which are all essential for adequately supporting a lab and a project. The rationale for such budget cuts comes down to increasing “government efficiency” by minimizing any spending deemed “unnecessary” [1]. Similar cuts have been made to other governmental departments, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services [3].  This new NIH policy means that research labs and facilities across the nation will need to cut back on the number of projects, scholars, and utilities that they use, stagnating scientific progression, and medical discovery. 


With this NIH budget cut, there will be fewer federal donations being supplied by facilities towards research. Therefore, this places a significantly higher financial burden on the universities and institutions that carry these labs — a burden that they cannot currently sustain [4]. Duke themselves has commented that the proposed policy would deprive them of about $194 million USD, causing significant stalling in their research and cease initiatives for discovery [5]. With this unstable financial responsibility, facilities are left to turn to additional, external funding sources. However, when their primary sources of research funding turn away from the government and to private enterprises, this can convolute a fundamental sentiment of all research: to avoid a conflict of interest. Private donors are easily able to target certain medical interests and avoid others that they deem unnecessary, potentially shifting the landscape of research in a biased way. Therefore, this financial burden on research-inhabiting facilities has the potential to complicate research ethics in an unforeseen way.


Introducing additional funding sources can also convolute the idea of “beneficence” in medical research. In an abstract sense, beneficence in research can be defined as minimizing harm to any research participants, something that is typically screened through IRBs, but also as maximizing “benefits to participants and society” [6]. However, with more potential financial partners in play, these societal benefits are increasingly ill-defined — what is beneficial, and what is of interest? Moreover, what is actually being done with the research would progressively be in the hands of other associates, rather than just the government and the university/institution. This additional dynamic adds another perspective of what deems a certain project as beneficial as it inherently introduces another interest. This complication of “beneficence” becomes even more relevant in projects that do not require the screening of an IRB. 


It is further likely that many institutions will simply cut the number of projects they support [4], inherently increasing the selectivity of projects proposed by individual laboratories or researchers. How does one deem which project is more worthy of another if they pertain to two different fields entirely? While these questions and complications are always present, they are highlighted and intensified in light of recent events and pose interesting ethical questions regarding not only research itself but its relationship with the government as a multibillion-dollar industry.   


Reviewed by Sanjana Anand


References 

[1] Guardian News and Media. (2025, February 8). Trump administration to cut billions in medical research funding. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/08/trump-administration-medical-research-funding-cuts 

[2] Direct costs vs. indirect costs. University Research. (2015, April 23). https://vpresearch.louisiana.edu/pre-award/building-your-budget/direct-costs-vs-indirect-costs 

[3] Kinnard, M. (2025, February 19). A comprehensive look at Doge’s firings and layoffs so far. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/doge-firings-layoffs-federal-government-workers-musk-d33cdd7872d64d2bdd8fe70c28652654 

[4] Badger, E., Bhatia, A., Cabreros, I., Murray, E., Paris, F., Sanger-katz, M., & Singer, E. (2025, February 14). How trump’s medical research cuts would hit colleges and hospitals in every State. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/upshot/nih-trump-funding-cuts.html 

[5] Brinn, L. (2025, February 13). Information about changes to NIH indirect cost reimbursement rates - Duke University: Office of the president. Duke University | Office of the President. https://president.duke.edu/2025/02/13/information-about-changes-to-nih-indirect-cost-reimbursement-rates/ 

[6] Mondragón Barrios, L., Martínez Levy, G. A., Díaz-Anzaldúa, A., & Estrada Camarena, E. (2022, September 30). Rethinking benefits in Health Research, reflections of an Ethics Committee. The Yale journal of biology and medicine. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9511940/

 
 
 

DMEJ

   Duke Medical Ethics Journal   

bottom of page