June, 18 2020, 12:00am EDT

Hospitals Serving the Most Patients of Color Have Least Funding for Buildings and Equipment
"This important study uses publicly available data to document why care for many people of color in hospitals with large numbers of Black and Latinx patients may suffer because of inadequate funding. This will continue until we adopt a Medicare for All insurance system protecting everyone equally." - Dr. Sidney Wolfe, founder and senior adviser, Public Citizen's Health Research Group
WASHINGTON
"This important study uses publicly available data to document why care for many people of color in hospitals with large numbers of Black and Latinx patients may suffer because of inadequate funding. This will continue until we adopt a Medicare for All insurance system protecting everyone equally." - Dr. Sidney Wolfe, founder and senior adviser, Public Citizen's Health Research Group
Hospitals that care for large numbers of Black and Latinx patients have far less to spend on facilities such as buildings and equipment, and offer fewer high-tech services than other U.S. hospitals, according to a new study of hospitals' capital assets and spending. The peer-reviewed study, released ahead of print in the International Journal of Health Services, used data from 4,476 hospitals to determine the total value of each hospital's facilities.
At hospitals serving few people of color, the total value of the facilities available for patient care was 60.2% higher than at the 10% of U.S. hospitals with the highest proportion of Black patients: $8,325 vs. $5,197 per inpatient day in 2017. For the 10% of hospitals with the largest share of Latinx patients, the comparable figure was $5,763. The researchers also found that the hospital asset gap is widening; hospitals serving mostly white patients had about twice as much funding for modernization and new equipment as those serving patients of color ($3,092 annually per patient day at hospitals serving mostly white patients vs. $1,242 at Black-serving hospitals and $1,738 at Latinx-serving hospitals).
The lower spending on facilities translated into more crowding at Black- and Latinx-serving hospitals, which had 35% and 18% less square feet per occupied bed respectively than hospitals with few patients of color. The inequalities in facilities and equipment were not explained by differences in patients' severity-of-illness, or hospitals' size, location or teaching status.
The study also found that 19 of 27 expensive, specialized services were less available at hospitals serving people of color; only 2 were more available. For instance, Black- and Latinx-serving hospitals were about half as likely as other hospitals to offer robotic surgery, cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization, computer-assisted orthopedic surgery, cardiac rehabilitation and weight-loss surgery.
The researchers used data on the share of Black and Latinx people among Medicare patients at each hospital and calculated the value of (and new spending on) buildings and equipment from 2013-2017 official Medicare Cost Reports. They determined the availability of specific services and hospitals' square footage based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey.
An important determinant of a hospital's current resources for patient care, payer mix, is strongly linked to patients' race. Hospitals have historically collected low payments for the care of uninsured and Medicaid patients (who are disproportionately Black and Latinx), while patients with private coverage are the most lucrative.
Lead author, Gracie Himmelstein, an MD/PhD candidate at Icahn Mount Sinai Medical School and Princeton University's Office of Population Studies, and a Woodrow Wilson Fellow at Princeton commented: "Our study confirms the stark differences between rich hospitals and poor hospitals that I've seen during my training. Many of the doctors and nurses at poor hospitals are terrific, but they're fighting an uphill battle; they care for the sickest patients in the most crowded and difficult conditions. To compensate for decades of unequal health financing we need to invest in hospitals serving Black and Latinx patients, and abandon an insurance system that offers hospitals rich rewards to care for some patients, and less or nothing to care for others."
Co-author Dr. Kathryn Himmelstein, a resident in internal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School noted, "White Americans were living three and a half years longer than Black Americans even before COVID-19 began ravaging communities of color. If America wants to show that Black lives truly matter, we need to reverse the structural racism that's literally built into our hospitals."
" Inequality Set in Concrete: Physical Resources Available for Care at Hospitals Serving People of Color and Other U.S. Hospitals". Gracie Himmelstein, MA and Kathryn EW Himmelstein, MSEd, MD. Available ahead of print: International Journal of Health Services, 2020
An embargoed copy of the article is available to media professionals on request from ghimmels@princeton.edu.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Trump Says National Guard to Leave Chicago, LA, and Portland, But 'Will Come Back'
Accusing "a president desperate to be king" of using troops "as political pawns," California's attorney general noted the announcement followed "a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court."
Dec 31, 2025
After a series of losses in court, President Donald Trump ended 2025 with an announcement that he is pulling the plug on legally contested National Guard deployments in three major US cities—but he also pledged that troops will return in the new year.
Trump initially sent thousands of California National Guard members to Los Angeles in June amid protests against his violent immigration operations. The remaining troops left the city earlier this month in response to a pair of orders from a district judge and the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The president also tried to deploy National Guard members to the streets of two other Democrat-led cities—Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois—but those moves were blocked by lawsuits, including one that produced a US Supreme Court decision last week.
Throughout the president's push to deploy troops to these and other cities, he has circulated lies about crime rates. He did so again in the Wednesday announcement on his Truth Social platform, writing, "We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact."
"Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in," Trump claimed. "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time! It is hard to believe that these Democrat Mayors and Governors, all of whom are greatly incompetent, would want us to leave, especially considering the great progress that has been made???"
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat expected to run for president in 2028, said on social media Wednesday that it is "about time Donald Trump admitted defeat. We've said it from day one: The federal takeover of California's National Guard is illegal."
Newsom and the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, challenged the LA deployment. In that case, the US Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a brief with the 9th Circuit withdrawing its motion to keep the California troops under federal control.
"For six months, CA National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a president desperate to be king," Bonta said Wednesday. "Now, in the face of a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is backing away from its effort to federalize and deploy CA National Guard troops."
Although that Supreme Court decision was not directly about California, the justices' rejection of the Trump administration's request to strike down a temporary restraining order that barred the Illinois deployment was expected to inform other cases.
Trump federalized Illinois and Texas national guard troops to patrol in Chicago, but Illinois quickly sued and won a court ruling keeping them out of the city. The troops did training exercises instead. Today, Trump claims that the guard "greatly reduced" crime in Chicago. Did they do it remotely?
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob (@markjacob.bsky.social) December 31, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat who may run for the Oval Office in the next cycle, also pointed to the recent ruling in his response to the president on Wednesday: "Donald Trump's lying again. He lost in court when Illinois stood up against his attempt to militarize American cities with the National Guard. Now Trump is forced to stand down."
"Illinois and Chicago have reduced crime with smart investments in police and community violence reduction programs," he continued. "Meanwhile, Trump cut federal support for both. No matter how many lies he tells, we will keep standing up for truth and against his abuse of power."
Ahead of Trump's announcement, the New Republic's Greg Sargent said that the president and his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, "are actually failing in crucial ways. Deportations are lagging behind their goals, courts are mostly functioning, and their fascist, ethnonationalist cruelties have unleashed a countermobilization of unexpected scope and power."
After the new Truth Social post, Sargent added: "Trump just announced that he's pulling the National Guard out of Chicago, LA, and Portland while pretending he won some kind of big victory. Here's the reality: Their authoritarian designs have faced massive civil and popular resistance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Year's Eve Dump: House Releases Video and Transcript of Jack Smith Deposition
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Dec 31, 2025
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released both the transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith's December 17 testimony about his criminal cases against President Donald Trump that were shut down last year after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
The release, which occurred as millions of Americans were preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve, revealed fresh insights into Smith's investigation and prosecution of the president, who had been indicted on charges related to the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents and his bid to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Among other things, Smith testified that he believed that Trump's false claims about fraud in the 2020 election were not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution because they were aimed at disrupting the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the US Capitol building and send lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith emphasized. "As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use... knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function."
Smith also testified that he and his team sought gag orders against Trump because the then-former president "was making statements that were endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff."
Smith also said that he would "make no apologies" for requesting a gag order against Trump.
When asked about his decision to subpoena phone records of US senators during his investigation, Smith laid out why Trump had left him with no other option.
"I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump," he said. "These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them... that lies with Donald Trump."
Commenting on the timing of the release, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called it "an obvious attempt" by House Republicans to "bury" the information that Smith delivered during his testimony.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Claims He's Slashing Costs, Big Pharma Jacks Up Prices on 350 Drugs
One critic charged that Trump's earlier deals with pharmaceutical companies "just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the US."
Dec 31, 2025
President Donald Trump in recent months has made ludicrously false claims about his administration slashing prescription drug prices in the US by as much as 600%, which would entail pharmaceutical companies paying people to use their products.
In reality, reported Reuters on Wednesday, drugmakers are planning to raise prices on hundreds of drugs in 2026.
Citing data from healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors, Reuters wrote that at least 350 branded medications are set for price hikes next year, including "vaccines against COVID, RSV, and shingles," as well as the "blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance."
The total projected number of drugs seeing price increases next year is significantly higher than in 2025, when 3 Axis Advisors estimated that pharmaceutical companies raised prices on 250 medications.
The median price increase for drugs next year is projected at 4%, roughly the same as in 2025.
Reuters also found that some of the companies raising prices on their drugs are the same ones who struck deals with Trump to lower the costs of a limited number of prescriptions earlier this year, including Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK.
In announcing the deals with the pharmaceutical companies, Trump declared that "starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast and furious and will soon be the lowest in the developed world."
But Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told Reuters that the projected savings for Americans under the Trump deals are a drop in the bucket compared with the continued price hikes on other drugs.
"These deals are being announced as transformative when, in fact, they really just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the US," Rome explained.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, a patient advocacy organization focused exclusively on lowering the cost of medications, also said she was unimpressed by Trump's deals with drugmakers.
"Voluntary agreements with drug companies—especially when key details remain undisclosed—are no substitute for durable, system-wide reforms," she said earlier this month. "Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices, because drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


