As we look to advance the public’s health and eliminate health disparities through programs and policies, one issue that surfaces repeatedly is which racial/ethnic group we should focus on. One group that calls for attention is the Hispanic population. The Hispanic population, the fastest growing subgroup of the US population, is heterogeneous and comprises people from at least 25 countries with the Spanish language as the common identifier. As of 2002, there were 37.4 million Hispanics in the United States, representing 13.3% of the total mainland population.1 Mexican Americans represent 66.9% of the total Hispanic population, followed by Central and South Americans (14.3%), Puerto Ricans (8.6%), Cubans (3.7%), and other Hispanics (6.5%). Compared with Whites, Hispanics are younger, have a lower proportion of people aged 25 years and older with at least a high school diploma, are more likely to be unemployed, are less likely to earn $35000 or more, are more likely to live in poverty, and are less likely to have health insurance.1,2 Figure 2 Rufina Tinoco, 59, does not have health insurance and would have gone blind from glaucoma had not the Open Door Health Center in Florida found an eye surgeon willing to operate on her for free. (IPNSTOCK/Ed Kashi) There is significant variability among Hispanic subgroups. Mexican Americans are the youngest, the least educated, and the least likely to have health insurance, while Puerto Ricans are the least likely to be uninsured but have the highest proportion of unemployed people and are the most likely to live below poverty level. Cubans are the oldest, the most educated, and the least likely to be unemployed, while Central and South Americans are the least likely to live below poverty level. Finally, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, Puerto Ricans fare similar to or worse than non-Hispanic Blacks with regard to income, education, unemployment status, and poverty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luisa N. Borrell (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: