Oral health is among one of the most neglected fields of medicine in the world, not among practices but rather accessibility. Globally, poor oral health affects roughly 3.5 billion people annually with a whopping economic burden of 710 billion dollars. Not only does the neglect of oral health ravage the global population and economy on an unfathomable scale, it raises further questions regarding healthcare equity for all. The global scale of healthcare equity expands much wider than the minute scope of oral health however due to the massive realm of healthcare. The arcane complexion of the human body ranging from the brain to individual joints and blood vessels allows for profound research and advances in medicine. Simultaneously, the expansive human body requires multiple fields of healthcare to specialize in discrete treatments—which consequently exacerbates the problem of unsophisticated healthcare across the globe especially in underdeveloped communities. In a nutshell, topics of healthcare equity, affordability, and efficiency raise novel concerns all around the globe annually.
Although the terms “equality” and “equity” sound similar, they possess completely distinct meanings that must not be interchangeably used in the field of healthcare. Health equity refers to the fundamental notion that everyone, regardless of their circumstances, deserves the right to achieve their full potential for health and well-being. On the other hand, health equality refers to equal access in health for everyone. Notice the lack of “circumstances” in the two different meanings; health equality disregards the inherently different circumstances of patients. Equality allows for universal access to healthcare, but equity accommodates the needs of unique individuals to achieve universal healthcare. Essentially, equality opens the “field” of healthcare for all, but equity will adjust accordingly to achieve the very same goal [Figure 1].
Although achieving healthcare equity on a global scale may seem daunting and mystifying at first, contemporary healthcare organizations have taken big leaps in approach. Regardless of health disparities within racial or sexual minorities, people with disabilities, socioeconomic status, or even language barriers, approaches in equity to accommodate these underprivileged groups really boils down to two profound concepts: data and classification. To combat the major issue of healthcare equity, policy makers around the world have and will continue to take initiative for paving the way in medicine.
The John Hopkins ACG System serves as both a major starting point and checkpoint for sophisticated actions toward healthcare equity. Established to identify trends in patterns among patients and medical diseases around the world, the ACG System allows for better modeling, prediction, and allocation—for patients and crucial resources alike. The ACG System accomplishes systematic organization of healthcare data by leveraging off of three primary classification markers: specific patient groups, social need markers, and geographic markers. These very same classification markers further fall into more pinpoint categories. Namely, the specific patient groups apply to a wide spectrum based on their wellbeing. Ranging from categories of age, morbidity (the condition of suffering from a medical condition), pregnancy status, to even psychiatric conditions, specific patient groups also manifest to different extents of complexity which creates a vast system of classification that accommodates for different patients’ wellbeing. Moreover, the social need and geographic markers play an arguably more personal role in identifying how a healthcare system should exercise suitable decisions in diagnosis and treatment. Akin to the specific patient groups markers, social and geographic markers fall under more precise categories that allow for healthcare organizations to interpret and analyze the different backgrounds of patients. Education, physical environment, and economic factors among others play huge roles in consolidating data of patients. By effect, a consolidated database of patients and their specific backgrounds becomes increasingly aligned to the goal of healthcare equity—one that accommodates the wellbeing of all. With a strong foundation in classification of patients, healthcare organizations and policy makers can now move onto the more “practical” approaches to achieving healthcare equity. Those very same social markers paint clearer pictures of patient profiles and allow for appropriate allocation of healthcare resources that organizations see to best fit. Again, the classification of patients creates succinct yet expansive data, but that data will ultimately align with healthcare equity, an idyllic concept so close yet so far.
Considering the historical scope in which humans have exercised classification of others, it may seem ironic how policy makers in the modern era employ those very same ideas to solve global issues. Classification of people is not inherently bad, the ulterior motive creates that illusion. Undoubtedly, only the “fair” and “good” ulterior motives that seem insurmountable at first glance will triumph as more stable classification systems—like healthcare equity.