Concerns about Unfair Treatment Measure (Study 1)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tessa L. Dover ◽  
Brenda Major ◽  
Cheryl R. Kaiser
2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Gomez ◽  
Steven J. Trierweiler

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tessa L. Dover ◽  
Brenda Major ◽  
Cheryl R. Kaiser

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vesna Jordanova ◽  
Mike J. Crawford ◽  
Sally McManus ◽  
Paul Bebbington ◽  
Traolach Brugha

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Antonio Escamilla-Cejudo ◽  
Christine D. Karkashian ◽  
Robyn R. M. Gershon ◽  
Larry Murphy

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Dennison ◽  
Jessica G. Finkeldey
Keyword(s):  

Games ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Alison Watts

Online advertising often involves targeting ads to certain types of consumers where ads are commonly sold by generalized second price auctions. However, such an auction or mechanism could be considered unfair if similar consumers are consistently shown different ads or consistently receive different payoffs. Results show that such ascending bid auctions may result in unfair treatment and additionally that uncertainty regarding an ad’s value can result in inefficiency. An alternative way to assign ads to consumers is presented called the random assignment mechanism. Results show that the random assignment can improve fairness while improving efficiency in some circumstances.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 115-115
Author(s):  
Nicole E. Caston ◽  
Courtney Williams ◽  
Kathleen D. Gallagher ◽  
Rebekah Angove ◽  
Eric Anderson ◽  
...  

115 Background: Patients with cancer who perceive discrimination and unfair treatment from the health care system are at risk for lower health-related quality of life. This study seeks to better understand the characteristics of under-resourced patients who report unfair treatment from the health care system and providers. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used data from a nationwide survey distributed in December 2020 by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), a US non-profit organization providing case management and financial aid to individuals with chronic illness. The survey was fielded via email to those who received PAF services from July 2019-April 2020. Inclusion criteria included a valid e-mail address, aged ≥ 19, and either current or previous cancer treatment. Respondents reported unfair treatment in connection to their health care. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, and annual household income were abstracted from the PAF database. The validated Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale was used to assess respondents’ level of mistrust in medical providers as it relates to their ethnic group. Scores range from 12-60 and were categorized based on tertiles as high mistrust (scores ≥ 29), neutral (21-28), and low mistrust (≤ 20). Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. Results: There were a total of 429 survey respondents with cancer. Most respondents were female (73%) and aged 56-75 (57%); 31% were Black, Indigenous, or Persons of Color (BIPOC). The most common cancer types were hematologic (33%) and breast (33%). Overall, 20% (n = 86) of respondents reported having received unfair treatment. Of those reporting unfair treatment, 56% reported receipt from their doctor, nurse, or health care provider, 51% insurance company, 38% the health care system, and 14% pharmacist. When asked why they felt unfairly treated, the most common responses were related to insurance status (51%), disease or condition (45%), and income (35%). Notably, unfair treatment due to race/ethnicity (6%), sex (9%), and sexual orientation/gender expression (3%) were uncommon. When compared to those who reported objective treatment, respondents reporting unfair treatment were more often unemployed/other (28% vs 11%), privately insured (38% vs 27%), having income < $23,000 (40% vs 25%), having 3+ comorbidities (40% vs 23%) and reporting more mistrust in medical providers (53% vs 27%). There did not appear to be a difference in reporting of unfair treatment by race/ethnicity. Of BIPOC respondents, 51% reported high mistrust in medical providers. Conclusions: This under-resourced population of respondents with cancer reported unfair treatment related to their finances, insurance, and disease status. Our data suggest health care-associated discrimination may occur based on socioeconomic resources. This work identifies a novel equity consideration warranting further evaluation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document