Health Equity Considerations Research Articles

Inequities inspatial access to health services inGhanaian cities.

Consideration of health equity is fundamental to enhancing the health of those who are economically/socially disadvantaged. A vital characteristic of health equity and therefore health disparity is the level of spatial access to health services and its distribution among populations. Adequate knowledge of health disparity is critical to enhancing the optimal allocation of resources, identification of underserved populations and improving the efficiency and performance of the health system. The provision of such insight for sub-Saharan African (SSA) cities is a challenge and is severely limited in the literature. Accordingly, this study examined the disparities in potential spatial access to health services for four selected urban areas in Ghana based on: (1) the number of physicians per population; (2) access score based on a weighted sum of access components; (3) travel time to health services and (4) the combined evaluation of linkages between travel distance, settlement area, population and economic status. The overall spatial access to health services is low across all selected cities varying between 3.02 and 1.78 physicians per 10 000 persons, whereas the access score is between 1.70 and 2.54. The current number of physicians needs to be increased by about five times to satisfy the World Health Organization's standard. The low spatial access is not equitable across and within the selected cities, where the economically disadvantaged populations were found to endure longer travel distances to access health services. Inequities were found to be embedded within the selected cities where economically poor populations are also disadvantaged in their physical access to healthcare. The health facilities in all cities have reasonable travel distances separating them but are inadequately resourced with physicians. Thus, increasing the physician numbers and related resources at spatially targeted existing facilities would considerably enhance spatial access to health services.

O.5.3-6 Community-based physical activity promotion in Germany: a systematic overview and good practice projects

Abstract Purpose Approaches to community-based physical activity promotion (c-PAP) are recommended to counteract physical inactivity in the population. The aim of this study was to present a systematic overview of the practice of c-PAP in Germany. Furthermore, we aimed to identify good practice projects to provide guidance for the implementation and scale up of c-PAP. Methods In the first step, we identified projects by searching 4 scientific databases and 21 project databases. For each project, we extracted data on “federal state”, “consideration of health equity” and “implementation in urban or rural areas”. In addition, we sorted the included projects into different types of community-based approaches. In the next step, we assessed projects with a documented process and/or outcome evaluation using quality criteria for the phases of conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation. Projects that fulfilled at least 50% of the quality criteria were selected as good practice projects. Results We identified a total of 240 c-PAP projects. Rural areas primarily implemented environmental approaches while urban areas focused more on multi-component approaches as well as offers and events. 45 projects showed adequate documentation of the process and/or outcome evaluation, of which 17 projects were identified as good practice. Conclusions Overall, there is potential for improvement in addressing health equity, an active participation of people with social disadvantages over the entire project cycle as well as the implementation of multi-component approaches. This requires funding programs that allow for good practice projects, which establish structures and particularly reach disadvantaged communities. A jointly adopted standard by stakeholders from policy, practice, and research for the application of quality criteria along with a classification for good practice could be an asset for further strategic development of c-PAP in Germany. Funding Source This work was supported by the Federal Centre of Health Education (BZgA) on behalf of and with funds from the statutory health insurances according to § 20a SGB V in the context of the GKV Alliance for Health (www.gkv-buendnis.de).

Preparing for pragmatic trials in dementia care: Health equity considerations for nonpharmacological interventions.

Inequities with regard to brain health, economic costs, and the evidence base for dementia care continue. Achieving health equity in dementia care requires rigorous efforts that ensure disproportionately affected populations participate fully in-and benefit from-clinical research. Embedding-proven interventions under real-world conditions and within existing healthcare systems have the potential to examine the effectiveness of an intervention, improve dementia care, and leverage the use of existing resources. Developing embedded pragmatic controlled trials (ePCT) research designs for nonpharmacological dementia care interventions involves a plethora of a priori assumptions and decisions. Although frameworks exist to determine whether interventions are "ready" for ePCT, there is no heuristic to assess health equity-readiness. We discuss health equity considerations, case examples, and research strategies across ePCT study domains of evidence, risk, and alignment. Future discussions regarding health equity considerations across other domains are needed.

Development of an Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee for a collaborative quality improvement network: Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4) Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Committee: white paper 2023.

Racial and ethnic disparities are well described in paediatric cardiac critical care outcomes. However, understanding the mechanisms behind these outcomes and implementing interventions to reduce and eliminate disparities remain a gap in the field of paediatric cardiac critical care. The Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4) established the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Committee in 2020 to promote an equity lens to its aim of improving paediatric cardiac critical care quality and outcomes across North America. The PC4 EDI Committee is working to increase research, quality improvement, and programming efforts to work towards health equity. It also aims to promote health equity considerations in PC4 research. In addition to a focus on patient outcomes and research, the committee aims to increase the inclusion of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) members in the PC4 collaborative. The following manuscript outlines the development, structure, and aims of the PC4 EDI Committee and describes an analysis of social determinants of health in published PC4 research.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study

Background and ObjectiveTo identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. MethodsWe employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. ResultsWe identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). ConclusionEquity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health: Consensus Bundle on Sepsis in Obstetric Care.

Sepsis in obstetric care is one of the leading causes of maternal death in the United States, with Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native obstetric patients experiencing sepsis at disproportionately higher rates. State maternal mortality review committees have determined that deaths are preventable much of the time and are caused by delays in recognition, treatment, and escalation of care. The "Sepsis in Obstetric Care" patient safety bundle provides guidance for health care teams to develop coordinated, multidisciplinary care for pregnant and postpartum people by preventing infection and recognizing and treating infection early to prevent progression to sepsis. This is one of several core patient safety bundles developed by AIM (the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) to provide condition- or event-specific clinical practices that should be implemented in all appropriate care settings. As with other bundles developed by AIM, the "Sepsis in Obstetric Care" patient safety bundle is organized into five domains: Readiness, Recognition and Prevention, Response, Reporting and Systems Learning, and Respectful, Equitable, and Supportive Care. The Respectful, Equitable, and Supportive Care domain provides essential best practices to support respectful, equitable, and supportive care to all patients. Further health equity considerations are integrated into the elements of each domain.

Health Equity in Climate Change and Health Policies: A Systematic Review

The complex interconnections between climate change policies and health equity are well established, and policy research to understand the health impacts of climate change in multiple domains is growing. Policy analysis theories/frameworks are an important aspect of policy analysis. Many frameworks exist to understand the health equity considerations in policies across various disciplines and the health impacts of climate change-related policies in the health and climate change sectors. However, a closer examination is required to understand whether there is explicit attention to health equity issues in relation to climate change policies in an integrated way. This systematic review attempted to identify existing health equity-focused policy analysis frameworks for understanding health equity considerations in climate change and public health policies. Eight papers were identified through five database searches. Policy analysis frameworks exploring the integration of health equity and climate change are fragmented, and frameworks encompassing several aspects of the policy-making process could not be found. Problem framing and policy-focused solutions were common approaches to understanding health equity in climate change policies. Concepts of social determinants of health and social justice were central to the intersection of climate change and health equity.

Lung Cancer Screening: Implementation Challenges and Health Equity Considerations For the Western Pacific Region.

Lung Cancer Screening: Implementation Challenges and Health Equity Considerations For the Western Pacific Region.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation.

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences as well as medication cost and availability. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to help guide future research opportunities and enhance the care of patients with chronic constipation.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus

BackgroundThe prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity.MethodsWe conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population.ResultsAfter searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity.ConclusionsThis project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Equitable Urban Planning: Harnessing the Power of Comprehensive Plans.

Describe the role of comprehensive plans in promoting health equity in urban communities. Specifically, the review aims to identify recent findings related to using comprehensive plans to shape social determinants of health and to discuss the challenges that comprehensive plans face in promoting health equity. The review also presents recommendations for how urban planners, public health practitioners, and policymakers can work together to promote health equity through comprehensive planning efforts. The evidence highlights the importance of comprehensive plans in promoting health equity in communities. These plans can shape the social determinants of health, such as housing, transportation, and green space, which significantly impact health outcomes. However, comprehensive plans face challenges related to the lack of data and understanding of the social determinants of health and the need for collaboration between multiple sectors and community groups. To effectively promote health equity through comprehensive plans, a standardized framework that incorporates health equity considerations is needed. This framework should include common goals and objectives, guidance on assessing potential impacts, performance metrics, and community engagement strategies. Urban planners and local authorities play a critical role in developing clear guidelines for integrating health equity considerations into planning efforts. Harmonizing comprehensive plan requirements across the USA are also essential to ensure equitable access to opportunities for health and well-being.

Applying an equity lens to assess context and implementation in public health and health services research and practice using the PRISM framework.

Dissemination and implementation science seeks to enhance the uptake, successful implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based programs and policies. While a focus on health equity is implicit in many efforts to increase access to and coverage of evidence-based programs and policies, most implementation frameworks and models do not explicitly address it. Disparities may in fact be increased by emphasizing high intensity interventions or ease of delivery over meeting need within the population, addressing deep-rooted structural inequities, and adapting to local context and priorities. PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model), the contextual expansion of the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework has several elements that address health equity, but these have not been explicated, integrated, or illustrated in one place. We present guidance for applying PRISM with an equity lens across its four context domains (external environment; multi-level perspectives on the intervention; characteristics of implementers and intended audience; and the implementation and sustainability infrastructure-as well as the five RE-AIM outcome dimensions. We then present an example with health equity considerations and discuss issues ofrepresentation and participation, representativeness and the importance of ongoing, iterative assessment of dynamic context and structural drivers of inequity. We also elaborate on the importance of a continuous process that requires addressing community priorities and responding to capacity and infrastructure needs and changes. We conclude with research and practice recommendations for applying PRISM with an increased emphasis on equity.

Best Practice Recommendations for Integrating Health Equity into Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Dementia Care.

Minoritized populations experience higher rates of dementia and worse health outcomes than non-Hispanic white people, but they are vastly underrepresented in pragmatic clinical trials embedded in health care systems (ePCTs). Little guidance is available to consider health equity-relevant issues in ePCTs. This report describes the development, structure, and content of a guidance document developed by the National Institute on Aging Imbedded Pragmatic AD/ADRD Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory to help investigators systematically assess the integration of health equity into all aspects of ePCT design. Led by a task force of IMPACT investigators, a literature review of existing frameworks for health equity considerations in clinical trials was conducted. Next, priority health equity-relevant recommendations in the domains of ePCT design were solicited from Collaboratory experts. The 50 submitted recommendations were reduced to 36 nonoverlapping best practices and categorized into 6 domains, as follows: Getting Started, Community Stakeholder Engagement, Design and Analysis, Intervention Design and Implementation, Health Care System and Participant Selection, and Selecting Outcomes. Each domain had 6 best practice recommendations consisting of a succinctly worded main sentence, with 1 to 2 explanatory sentences. The content was finalized through an iterative process of editing and revision. Although specifically focused on ePCTs involving dementia care, the best practices are applicable to any ePCT and can be useful to advance health equity in traditional clinical trials. This guidance document provides a first step toward promoting holistic, structured integration of health equity into the design and conduct of ePCTs as a matter of good science.

The Magic of Proteases: From a Procoagulant and Anticoagulant Factor V to an Equitable Treatment of Its Inherited Deficiency.

Proteostasis, i.e., the homeostasis of proteins, responsible for ensuring protein turnover, is regulated by proteases, which also participate in the etiopathogenesis of multiple conditions. The magic of proteases is such that, in blood coagulation, one same molecule, such as coagulation factor V, for example, can perform both a procoagulant and an anticoagulant function as a result of the activity of proteases. However, this magic has an insidious side to it, as it may also prevent the completion of the clinical value chain of factor V deficiency. This value chain encompasses the discovery of knowledge, the transfer of this knowledge, and its translation to clinical practice. In the case of rare and ultra-rare diseases like factor V deficiency, this value chain has not been completed as the knowledge acquisition phase has dragged out over time, holding up the transfer of knowledge to clinical practice. The reason for this is related to the small number of patients afflicted with these conditions. As a result, new indications must be found to make the therapies cost-effective. In the case of factor V, significant research efforts have been directed at developing a recombinant factor V capable of resisting the action of the proteases capable of inactivating this factor. This is where bioethics and health equity considerations come into the equation.

Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health: Consensus Bundle on Cardiac Conditions in Obstetric Care.

Cardiac conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths and disproportionately affect non-Hispanic Black people. Multidisciplinary maternal mortality review committees have found that most people who died from cardiac conditions during pregnancy or postpartum were not diagnosed with a cardiovascular disease before death and that more than 80% of all pregnancy-related deaths, regardless of cause, were preventable. In addition, other obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, are associated with future cardiovascular disease risk. Those with cardiac risk factors and those with congenital and acquired heart disease require specialized care during pregnancy and postpartum to minimize risk of preventable morbidity and mortality. This bundle provides guidance for health care teams to develop coordinated, multidisciplinary care for pregnant and postpartum people with cardiac conditions and to respond to cardio-obstetric emergencies. This bundle is one of several core patient safety bundles developed by the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health that provide condition- or event-specific clinical practices for implementation in appropriate care settings. The Cardiac Conditions in Obstetric Care bundle is organized into five domains: 1) Readiness , 2) Recognition and Prevention , 3) Response , 4) Reporting and Systems Learning , and 5) Respectful Care . This bundle is the first by the Alliance to be developed with the fifth domain of Respectful Care . The Respectful Care domain provides essential best practices to support respectful, equitable, and supportive care to all patients. Further health equity considerations are integrated into elements in each domain.

Health equity considerations in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's and dementia disease: Results from a methodological review.

To improve dementia care delivery for persons across all backgrounds, it is imperative that health equity is integrated into pragmatic trials. We reviewed 62 pragmatic trials of people with dementia published 2014 to 2019. We assessed health equity in the objectives; design, conduct, analysis; and reporting using PROGRESS-Plus which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, and other factors such as age and disability. Two (3.2%) trials incorporated equity considerations into their objectives; nine (14.5%) engaged with communities; 4 (6.5%) described steps to increase enrollment from equity-relevant groups. Almost all trials (59, 95.2%) assessed baseline balance for at least one PROGRESS-Plus characteristic, but only 10 (16.1%) presented subgroup analyses across such characteristics. Differential recruitment, attrition, implementation, adherence, and applicability across PROGRESS-Plus were seldom discussed. Ongoing and future pragmatic trials should more rigorously integrate equity considerations in their design, conduct, and reporting. Few pragmatic trials are explicitly designed to inform equity-relevant objectives.Few pragmatic trials take steps to increase enrollment from equity-relevant groups.Disaggregated results across equity-relevant groups are seldom reported.Adherence to existing tools (e.g., IMPACT Best Practices, CONSORT-Equity) is key.

Are Health Technology Assessments Keeping Pace with Health Equity Priorities: A Review of Existing Approaches and Discussion of Emerging Practices

Health technology assessments are evaluation tools used by decision makers and governing bodies to evaluate the relative effectiveness, safety, and cost of new health technologies. Despite the significant access and reimbursement implications of the decisions informed by health technology assessments, health equity is not consistently included in these assessments. This review explores current health technology assessment approaches using global examples, examines how health technology assessments include health equity considerations, reviews how health equity is not optimally included in health technology assessments using a case study example, and discusses emerging practices to include more health equity related metrics using examples from sponsors and health technology assessment agencies. Results show that health technology assessments do not have a consistent, clearly defined measures of health equity impact or methods to include health equity-oriented measures in assessments. Additionally, most do not provide differentiated value assessments for health equity-oriented data or impact. However, innovators and health technology assessment organizations are presenting new approaches to evaluation. Some outside groups are advocating for change and investing in developing health equity checklists and frameworks for incorporation in health technology assessments. Moving forward, more research is needed to understand how to best incorporate heath equity-oriented measures into health technology assessments and how innovators can get more involved to inform both product development and evaluation efforts. If done well, health technology assessments can be developed to reward technologies and research programs that have a significant and measurable impact on delivering more equitable health outcomes.

Health Equity Considerations: HIV Intervention Adaptation for Black Women in Community Corrections

Objectives: This article describes the process used to adapt the only group-based, computer-assisted, HIV/sexually transmitted infections (STI) prevention intervention designed for drug-using Black women in community corrections using an integrated health equity ADAPT-ITT framework with a peer engagement lens. Methods: Key adaptation partners included cisgender, drug-using Black women in community corrections, and Black, female, community reentry providers slated to deliver the adapted intervention. Focus groups and a study pilot were held. Results: The resulting intervention, Empowering African-American Women on the Road to Health (E-WORTH), features HIV/STI-specific Afrocentric themes of risk and resiliency tailored for and by Black women in the criminal legal system. Evaluation of E-WORTH confirms its cultural resonance. Participants had a 54% lowered odds of testing positive for any STI and reported 38% fewer acts of condomless vaginal or anal intercourse at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: Findings underscore the need to develop an adaptation model that is explicitly health equity in focus.

OP50 Health Equity Considerations In HTA: A Case Example Of Prenatal Screening

IntroductionThe Washington Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program has been guiding coverage decisions in the state since 2007. The Center for Evidence-based Policy works with the program to develop evidence-based HTA reports. In 2020, we presented an HTA on cell-free DNA prenatal screening for chromosomal aneuploidies. In the committee’s discussion, questions around access to screening tests and to prenatal care more generally were raised. We present a case study of how health equities were considered in the development of coverage criteria.MethodsWe conducted an HTA using standard systematic review methodologies. Outcomes focused on test accuracy and the impact of screening. We did not look for evidence on access to prenatal screening tests or people’s experience of prenatal screening. We reviewed the meeting transcript to identify issues of health equity and how they influenced the final decision.ResultsDuring the discussion of the evidence, the committee raised concerns around equitable access to cell-free DNA tests and prenatal screening, including: direct costs to the person; access to the full range of prenatal screening, including ultrasound; and, uptake of prenatal screening. Based on the findings from the evidence report, expert testimony, and public comment, the committee voted to cover cell-free DNA prenatal screening for chromosomal aneuploidies unconditionally.ConclusionsHealth equity is increasingly important in healthcare decision-making. Decision makers should consider how a decision may reduce health inequities and how it may inadvertently increase existing health inequities. Decision makers also need to understand the context within which the decision will be implemented. Consideration of health equity can be addressed in a number of ways, for example through systematic review of equity issues or patient experience or through the use of contextual knowledge from expert and public testimony. Regardless of the method, decision makers should remain transparent in how health equity considerations influenced their final determination.

Health Equity Considerations in State Bills Related to Doula Care (2015-2020).

Racial inequities in birth outcomes persist in the United States. Doula care may help to decrease inequities and improve some perinatal health indicators, but access remains a challenge. Recent doula-related state legislative action seeks to improve access, but the prioritization of equity is unknown. We reviewed recent trends in doula-related legislation and evaluated the extent to which new legislation addresses racial health equity. We conducted a landscape analysis of the LegiScan database to systematically evaluate state legislation mentioning the word "doula" between 2015 and 2020. We identified and applied nine criteria to assess the equity focus of the identified doula-related legislative proposals. Our final sample consisted of 73 bills across 24 states. We observed a three-fold increase in doula-related state legislation introduced over the study period, with 15 bills proposed before 2019 and 58 proposed in 2019-2020. Proposed policies varied widely in content and scope, with 53.4% focusing on Medicaid reimbursement for doula care. In total, 12 bills in 7 states became law. Seven of these laws (58.3%) contained measures for Medicaid reimbursement for doula services, but none guaranteed a living wage based on the cost of living or through consultation with doulas. Only two states (28.6%; Virginia and Oregon) that passed Medicaid reimbursement for doulas also addressed other racial equity components. There has been an increase in proposed doula-related legislation between 2015 and 2020, but racial health equity is not a focus among the laws that passed. States should consider using racial equity assessments to evaluate proposed doula-related legislation.