The Pink Collar in Medicine

As a student pursuing the field of medicine, I have one of the classic pre-medical student narratives: I have been wanting to be a physician ever since I was a young girl, and I could not imagine considering another career. In recent years, as more and more women have joined the medical field, and the presence of women has expanded across all aspects of medical practice, women like me to continue to be inspired to seek this career path. In 2014 alone, women already dominated some medical professions, accounting for more than 70% of physician assistant students, 62% of practicing PAs, and 57% of faculty in PA programs (Essary, 2014). Half of all US medical students, 30% of actively practicing physicians, and 37% of faculty at academic medical centers are female, and the number of women in the profession has only been increasing (Essary, 2014).

Growing up, I never had a doubt in my mind that I belonged in the medical field, and even as a woman in STEM, I never once stopped to reconcile the idea that my gender could prevent me from realizing my aspirations in medicine. However, even as more women are participating in the medical profession, inequalities in pay, leadership, and respect still run rampant in the practice, causing many women to reconsider their places as physicians. The representation of women in the field of medical practice is rapidly increasing, but society needs to change the allotment of resources, social attitudes, and bureaucratic control in order for women to truly have an equal influence in medicine. By neglecting female healthcare workers and denying them equality, the healthcare system also neglects to recognize the importance women have in the representation of patient populations, hindering the care that patients can receive.

On average, women earn about $30,000 less per year as a physician than men in the same position (Essary, 2014). This wage gap is something women experience in countless professions, and in medicine, it indicates how more competitive, higher-paying specializations are occupied disproportionately by men, especially as women are thought to drop out of those positions once they have children. Not only is this a strong misconception as women are actually more likely to return to their full-time practice and increase their hours after having children, but it is fundamentally rooted in the patriarchal idea that women must be the primary actor in raising a family (Ross, 2003). Even if the woman has no interest in raising a family, they are still automatically assumed to want one in the future and thus thought to be unfit for high-paying physician jobs. The lack of equal pay opportunities female physicians encounter is only one of the many inequalities they face and something that requires a great deal of change.

Women in medicine are also often criticized for not taking their share in leadership roles, but when female physicians do demand equal pay and leadership positions in healthcare, they are thought to hit a so-called “glass ceiling”— a very real, invisible barrier that prevents women from achieving the leadership status that men achieve. Female healthcare workers with the same credentials and abilities as male healthcare workers are found to have harsher resident milestone evaluations and less access to leadership opportunities, limiting them in the paths they can take in medicine.

In addition, the increase of female physicians in the field has led to the belief that the medical profession is being “feminized” and that it has become a “pink collar career,” losing the respect and monetary compensation the career usually carries (Ross, 2003). Why must a profession become less distinguished when women hold positions in it? The idea that women entering medicine decrease its prestige is a clear reflection of the view people have on women themselves, seeing the jobs they occupy as less revered because women themselves are less respected. The decrease of monetary compensation in the field is also directly related to the lack of leadership roles and high-paying opportunities female health workers have access to, perpetuating the inequities women experience in medicine.

The increase in women in medicine should not represent the decrease of prestige or respect in the profession, rather an increase of diversity and representation in the field. More women in healthcare means that more female patients are being listened to and receiving the representation and attention that male physicians often fail to provide them, and female healthcare workers inspire younger generations of girls to pursue the medical profession. There needs to be a change in the social beliefs and attitudes surrounding women, and only then will they receive the compensation, opportunities, and respect they deserve. Medicine is a profession that aims to serve the public, and until there is equality in medicine, the medical field will not be serving its patients in the best way possible.

1. Essary, Alison C, and Coplan, Bettie. “Ethics, equity, and economics: a primer on women in medicine.” JAAPA : official journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistantsvol. 27,5 (2014): 35-8. doi:10.1097/01.JAA.0000446231.08425.6d

2. Ross, Shelby. "The Feminization Of Medicine". Vol 5, no. 9, 2003. American Medical Association (AMA), doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2003.5.9.msoc1-0309.

Building the Language Wall in Healthcare

If you do not know how to speak English in the United States, you are as good as dead — at least that is the case in healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified this tragic trend.

A limited English proficient (LEP) woman entered a hospital with coronavirus in March and the staff mistakenly placed her with non-coronavirus patients. Due to her cough and fever, a doctor transferred her into a coronavirus unit, cautioning other physicians: “Good luck. She speaks Hungarian.” The medical resident treating her noted that no one wanted to arrange an interpreter to record her medical history. The resident proceeded to call the interpreter service as his N95 mask muffled his voice and his helmet blocked his ears. After spending five minutes yelling “Hungarian!” on the phone to get the appropriate interpreter, the service representative still thought he said “Spanish.” She died the following night.

Deficiencies in providing quality translating and interpreting services in healthcare have left LEP patients with worse outcomes: longer hospitalizations, more readmissions, and more medical errors. Yet the Trump administration reduced free access to language services and thereby explicitly undermined civil rights laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established LEP individuals’ right to receive free language assistance. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) clarified that language assistance must be meaningful—a standard evaluated by timeliness, accuracy, and efficacy. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was authorized to assure these rights in 2014. Too bad they were all talk and no action.

CMS teased that by 2016, LEP patients would receive information about language services and have access to qualified interpreters. But that year, nearly a third of U.S. hospitals still failed to offer interpreters. Without normalizing the use of language services in patient treatment, physicians risk n

eglecting their patients. Clinicians mistakenly accept nods and smiles as the equivalent of health literacy, when patients actually nod in fear of burdening their physician. They do not know they have the right to communicate with their health providers, no matter their English fluency. I did not even know this myself.

I am a Vietnamese American immigrant. Yet until I took a science law class during my freshman year of college, I did not know that my grandpa deserved to hear his paralysis diagnosis in Vietnamese. Does this mean I did not have to play doctor, interpreter, and the bearer of bad news for my family members? It only took 15 years in the states and a fortune in tuition to figure out the answer: No.

But the availability of medical interpreters and funding is deficient. Even when facilities provide language assistance, the shortage of professional interpreters delays procedural practices. However, medical facilities’ non-compliance is not completely intentional. The government mandates language access for LEP individuals, but provides the minimum in resources. Only 3% of medical facilities receive reimbursements from the government or Medicaid systems for language services they provide. Thus, hospitals treat language services as another item on the budget. In an attempt to reduce expenditures, healthcare facilities rely on untrained family members and bilingual staff to bridge the communication gap, resulting in the improper use of medications, incomplete medical histories, and poor adherence to post-operation instructions.

The health system has failed to acknowledge the severity of the language barrier as a challenge to quality health care. Thus, the integrity of healthcare for LEP individuals has been deteriorating for decades, and the pandemic has exposed this inequity. The Hungarian woman may have died even if she spoke English, but her experience exemplifies how LEP patients suffer from poor quality of care. Healthcare workers have adapted to the pressure with a utilitarian approach whereby the patients presenting minimal challenges to care are the ones who receive the best care. No one expects fluent English speakers to comprehend the extent of COVID-19, so how are LEP individuals expected to without language assistance?

Even though COVID-19 collapsed America’s healthcare system, Donald Trump decided to exacerbate the condition for marginalized communities. He justifies his xenophobia because of “high costs.” In reality, when hospitals consistently use language services, they offset interpreting expenditures with the money they save from fewer hospital readmissions.

It is futile to expect change from a government that continues to systematically oppress its people. Clinicians, take it upon yourself to normalize informing patients of language services and using those services. Check in with the patient and interpreter to ensure vital information is absorbed. If you cannot communicate with your patient, then you cannot provide care.

Community-based organizations are also critical in connecting LEP patients to physicians by reducing fear of health institutions and standardizing language and cultural competency. If the health sector does not meet the needs of the expanding demographic landscape, ten percent of our American population is as good as dead.

Works Cited

Burkle, C. M., Anderson, K. A., Xiong, Y., Guerra, A. E., & Tschida-Reuter, D. A. (2017).

Assessment of the efficiency of language interpreter services in a busy surgical and

procedural practice. BMC health services research, 17(1), 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/

s12913-017-2425-7

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2014). Strategic Language Access Plan (LAP):

To Improve Access to CMS Federally Conducted Activities by Persons with Limited English Proficiency [Brochure]. Baltimore, Maryland: Author. Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/OEOCRInfo/Downloads/StrategicLanguageAccessPlan.pdf

Das, L. T., Gonzalez, C. J., & Kutscher, E. J. (2020, July 29). Addressing Barriers To Care For

Patients With Limited English Proficiency During The COVID-19 Pandemic. Retrieved

September 23, 2020. https://doi/10.1377/hblog20200724.76821

Kaplan, Joshua. “Hospitals Have Left Many COVID-19 Patients Who Don't Speak English

Alone, Confused and Without Proper Care,” March 31, 2020. https://

www.propublica.org/article/hospitals-have-left-many-covid19-patients-who-dont-speak-

english-alone-confused-and-without-proper-care.

Karliner, L. S., Pérez-Stable, E. J., & Gregorich, S. E. (2017). Convenient Access to

Professional Interpreters in the Hospital Decreases Readmission Rates and Estimated

Hospital Expenditures for Patients with Limited English Proficiency. Medical

care, 55(3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000643

Levinson, D. R. (2010). Guidance and Standards on Language Access Services: Medicare Providers [Report].

Steinberg, E. M., Valenzuela-Araujo, D., Zickafoose, J. S., Kieffer, E., & DeCamp, L. R.

(2016). The "Battle" of Managing Language Barriers in Health Care. Clinical

pediatrics, 55(14), 1318–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922816629760

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020, June 12). HHS Finalizes Rule on

Section 1557 Protecting Civil Rights in Healthcare, Restoring the Rule of Law, and

Relieving Americans of Billions in Excessive Costs [Press release]. Retrieved September

23, 2020, from https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/06/12/hhs-finalizes-rule-

section-1557-protecting-civil-rights-healthcare.html

Wasserman, M., Renfrew, M. R., Green, A. R., Lopez, L., Tan-McGrory, A., Brach, C., &

Betancourt, J. R. (2014). Identifying and preventing medical errors in patients with

limited English proficiency: key findings and tools for the field. Journal for healthcare

quality: official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality, 36(3), 5–

16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhq.12065

More than Genetics: Social Determinants of Health

Hypothetically, let’s claim that not all patients receiving health care are treated equally. I know, as a pre-health student, this claim is outrageous because the medical field must be full of the perfection, rainbows, and butterflies I imagined when I first wanted to become a physician. How is it conceivable that the infant mortality rate of Native American and Alaskan Natives is 60% higher than that of the white population? Or that African American men are 30% more likely than white American men to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease? Even that minority women are less likely to avoid seeing a doctor due to cost? As much as I hate to pop the bubble that is our fantasies about medicine, racial and ethnic disparities are very real problems that the healthcare industry faces and that must be addressed to achieve equitable treatment.

According to the CDC, a large aspect of health is accredited to social determinants, which are the economic and social conditions that influence the health of communities and people. Examples of social determinants include early childhood development, quality of education, job security, food security, access and quality of health services, adequate housing, social support, language and literacy, incarceration, access to technology, and many more. Many of these factors have inherent racial implications through the history of structural and institutionalized racism within the United States; one such example of historical influence were the Jim Crow laws from the early 19th century that established barriers toward job security, housing, and equitable education. What this means is that many of the statistical disparities we see are not necessarily genetically tied to different races, but rather are the cumulative effects of sociopolitical inequalities.

Even more concerning are the racial and ethnic health disparities that relate to the psychological stressors of experiencing racial discrimination. Namely, ‘mixed race’ children with a Black mother and a White father have higher rates of low birth weight than children with a White mother and a Black father (Tashiro, 2020). This outcome is attributed to the psychosocial stressors of racism that Black mothers experience and pass down through epigenetics, the study of changes in gene expression through environmental exposures. There are numerous ways in which racial/ethnic minorities experience racism--these include systemic and institutionalized racism as well as direct, face-to-face discrimination such as racial slurs, unfair treatment, and violence. Exposure to racial discrimination has been proven to be associated with poor physical health, substance abuse, and mental illness (Tashiro, 2020), and there are a variety of health issues related to direct experiences with racism. Some of these include elevated blood pressure, abdominal obesity, breast cancer, heart disease, premature death, increased anxiety and depressive symptoms, and elevated stress hormones in teenagers (Tashiro, 2020). It is also important to note that although there is no biological basis for race, the impacts of racism in healthcare are apparent and serve to emphasize the importance of continuing to acknowledge and mitigate health inequities. Without these conversations, how do we ethically contribute to and work towards a system that disproportionately disadvantages entire communities?

Ultimately, as many of us continue on in our education in health care, it is important that we address the social factors that have led to the inequities we see in the medical field today. As much as O-Chem and genetics are valuable knowledge for pre-health students to master, we can’t leave behind the important social factors that shape how patients experience and perceive health.

As much as I would love to stay in the bubble of my childhood fantasies about medicine, the reality of these ingrained problems serves as a reminder to all of us of the work that needs be done to create a system of accessible and quality health care for all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

References:

Crowley, Ryan. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.” Racial and Ethnic Disparities in

Health Care, Updated 2010, American College of Physicians, 2010,

www.acponline.org/acp_policy/policies/racial_ethnic_disparities_2010.pdf.

“Frequently Asked Questions.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, 19 Dec. 2019, www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/socialdeterminants/faq.html.

Sciences, National Academies of, et al. “The State of Health Disparities in the United States.”

Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity., U.S. National Library of Medicine,

11 Jan. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425844/.

Tashiro, Cathy J. “Race, Racism, Ancestry and Health: Implications for Mixed Race People.”

Global "Mixed Race" Studies. 15 Sept. 2020.