The High Cost of Inequity in Health Care

Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman.

– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As we assess the last 12 months of a global struggle with COVID-19, and with glaring inequities in health care in the US, we can see both the darkness and the light.

There have been incalculable losses of 2.4 million deaths globally attributed to the virus, sharp increases in mortality rates associated with cardiovascular disease, and a steep drop in preventive care, of which we will see the effects for years to come.

At the same time, optimism and hope have come from the remarkable dedication of healthcare and other essential front-line workers, from the global scientific community as vaccines have become a reality in record time, and from local heroes lifting communities in need.

But a more thorough evaluation means we must recognize the devastating realities of social inequity within our healthcare system. Remarkable work has been published by thoughtful clinicians in The American Journal of Preventive MedicineJAMA Network Open, and others. The global pandemic has laid bare long-known inequities intimately intertwined with institutional or structural racism forcing marginalized communities to carry an undue burden.

The authors of the JAMA Network Open article point out that COVID-19 substantially increased the risks faced by America’s most at-risk communities. For example, African American individuals in Michigan experienced 31% of the state’s early COVID-19 cases while representing only 14% of the state’s population. Additionally, the authors draw attention in New York City to the disproportionate number of hospitalizations and deaths related to COVID-19 in the Bronx, the borough with the largest percentage of minority groups and households in poverty.

Sadly, this is simply another proofpoint that vulnerable communities have less access to healthcare. Pre-pandemic data published in April 2020 showed that “patients at physician practices serving the most disadvantaged populations were more likely to be admitted to the hospital for unstable angina.” These patients face burdens to fill basic prescriptions and preventive visits which are often beyond reach meaning that previously treatable diseases are seen at more advanced stages.

So what now? What can be done? We already know that COVID vaccinations are not reaching communities equitably, even with many making a concerted effort to ensure those at risk are prioritized. So does that mean that even our best efforts will come up short? Maybe it does, but we must continue to try and to seek new solutions. There is a crucial difference between an effort to prioritize the vulnerable and an effort to race “back to normal” where we gloss over the pain socially vulnerable communities bear.

Regardless of your politics, we can agree that there is work to be done, and this month has had multiple groups announcing new efforts. The White House announced a “COVID-19 Health Equity Task Force” working to consider how to address, or at least not exacerbate, inequitable healthcare. States are proposing to create a state-level Office of Health Equity and governors are discussing how they will work toward equity now and beyond. Even peer-reviewed journals are acknowledging their opportunity to address racism and bias in data gathering, review, and presentation.

All of these efforts are welcomed, but each of us must still consider what we will do to support change where we are right now. Although we ourselves may not be able to increase funding for the local county hospitals serving the most vulnerable patients, we can commit ourselves to ask about the actions of our hospitals and community leaders to support such efforts.

On top of it all, remember that health inequity and disparities of social determinants of health are downstream results of institutional and structural racism driving socioeconomic disadvantage. With this recognition, we can all commit to learn about these realities, and by doing so, begin to change them.

— A perspective from HeartFlow Chief Medical Officer, Campbell Rogers, MD
Bio | LinkedIn

Contact Us

*Required fields

Request the HeartFlow Analysis Near You

If you would like to request to have the HeartFlow Analysis available at a location near you, please submit your information below with details of the institution. We will share this information with the institution, but it will not guarantee HeartFlow will become available.

*Required fields

残念ながら、GDPR 規制により、この Web フォームを通じて求人への応募やキャリアに関する問い合わせを受け付けることはできません。弊社を通じてお申込みください 採用ページ. ご関心をお寄せいただきありがとうございます!


HeartFlow FFRCT 分析は、有資格の臨床医による臨床的に安定した症状のある冠状動脈疾患患者への使用を目的とした個別化された心臓検査です。 HeartFlow Analysis によって提供される情報は、資格のある臨床医が患者の病歴、症状、その他の診断検査、および臨床医の専門的判断と組み合わせて使用​​することを目的としています。


さらに質問がある場合は、このメッセージを閉じてフォームに記入するか、サポート チームにお電話ください。: 877.478.3569.

The HeartFlow FFRCT Analysis is a personalized cardiac test indicated for use in clinically stable symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease by qualified clinicians. The information provided by the HeartFlow Analysis is intended to be used by qualified clinicians in conjunction with the patient’s history, symptoms, and other diagnostic tests, as well as the clinician’s professional judgement.

For additional indication information about the HeartFlow Analysis, please visit

If you have additional questions, close out of this message to complete our form or call our support team: 877.478.3569.

Please apply for research grants through our online submission form.

Unfortunately, we cannot take job applications or career inquiries through this web form due to GDPR regulations. Please apply through our Careers Page. Thank you for your interest!

Campbell Rogers, M.D., F.A.C.C.

Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer

Campbell brings a wealth of experience to HeartFlow, where he serves as the Chief Medical Officer. Prior to joining HeartFlow, he was the Chief Scientific Officer and Global Head of Research and Development at Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, where he was responsible for leading investments and research in cardiovascular devices. Prior to Cordis, he was Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard-M.I.T. Division of Health Sciences and Technology, and Director of the Cardiac Catheterization and Experimental Cardiovascular Interventional Laboratories at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He served as Principal Investigator for numerous interventional cardiology device, diagnostic, and pharmacology trials, is the author of numerous journal articles, chapters, and books in the area of coronary artery and other cardiovascular diseases, and was the recipient of research grant awards from the NIH and AHA.

He received his A.B. from Harvard College and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School.