Rainbow Resilience: Addressing State Legislation and Healthcare Disparities Among Black LGBTQ+

Rainbow Resilience:

Addressing State Legislation and Healthcare Disparities Among

Black LGBTQ+ Communities

Brelynn Hunt, M.H.S., M. Phys., John R. Lewis Social Justice Fellow

June 2024

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of LGBTQ+ healthcare, Ohio’s recent Senate decision to override Governor Mike DeWine’s veto on a bill restricting transition-related medical care for transgender minors signals an alarming trend. Ohio joins a growing list of states that restrict minors’ access to essential healthcare services. This vulnerable demographic, comprising Black LGBTQ+ individuals, faces an amalgamation of challenges, such as limited insurance coverage, mental health disparities, barriers to healthcare access, and a disproportionate prevalence of HIV and AIDS. Discrimination in healthcare, including bias, homophobia, or transphobia, especially when intersecting with the experience of being Black in America, leave this group profoundly disadvantaged. This policy brief recognizes that discrimination against Black LGBTQ+ individuals extend beyond legislative barriers; permeating healthcare systems and impacting the quality and accessibility of care. The glaring inadequacy of protective policies and legislation becomes evident when considering the significant barriers faced by this population in obtaining equitable healthcare. Consequently, advocating for policies to safeguard the rights of Black LGBTQ+ individuals and ensure they receive the healthcare they are entitled to is imperative. This requires dismantling systemic barriers, fostering inclusivity, and championing legislative measures that not only protect but enhance the health and wellbeing of Black LGBTQ+ individuals in their pursuit of equitable healthcare.

Overview of LGBTQ+ Health Disparities

HISTORICAL DISPARITIES UNIQUELY FACED BY BLACK LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+1 acronym encompasses Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer individuals, reflecting a diverse array of people who share similar experiences of feeling marginalized in society due to their sexual orientation or identity. Societal norms during the late nineteenth century deemed homosexuals and gender non-conforming individuals as “inverts,” meaning having sexual inversions, placing them under the same category of “perverts” and social deviants (Bietsch, 2022). Following the significant 1973 reclassification by the American Psychiatric Association that deemed homosexuality as non-pathological, the medical landscape remained (American Medical Association, 2021). Despite the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

1 Throughout this policy brief, the terms “LGBT,” “LGBTQ+,” and “LGBTQI+” are used interchangeably based on the cited research. These terms reflect the evolving language and terminology used to describe sexual and gender minorities over time.

CPAR | Rainbow Resilience: Addressing State Legislation and Healthcare Disparities Among Black LGBT+ Communities

of Mental Disorders, diagnoses specific to gender nonconformity and certain sexual practices persisted as mental illnesses, perpetuating stigma for many LGBT individuals. Theological doctrine and laws at the time were the leading influencers of policies and social norms surrounding sexuality and gender, and anything outside the purview of procreational marriage was considered a sin (Bietsch, 2022).

Intricacies such as the requirement of mental illness diagnoses as a prerequisite for transgender individuals seeking hormones or surgery contributed to persistent disparities (Crawford-Lackey, 2020). Despite the disapproval of various conversion therapies, including strict policing of gender roles and aversion therapy by the American Psychological Association, a tangible shift towards acceptance and improved medical care for LGBTQ patients were slow to materialize. The healthcare system’s shortcomings were exacerbated by a lack of training on LGBTQ specific health issues and treatments, perpetuating social stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals (Crawford-Lackey, 2020).

During the 1980s, the AIDS crisis witnessed a significant surge in discrimination, as reports highlighted the disproportionate impact of the fatal illness on gay men (Crawford-Lackey, 2020).

The disease, initially labeled “gay-related immune deficiency (GRID),” perpetuated fear and discrimination with lasting consequences, including denial of hospital services, eviction, job loss, exclusion from public spaces, and rejection from funeral homes and cemeteries, purportedly due to concerns about endorsing homosexuality (Crawford-Lackey, 2020; Bietsch, 2022). The media also influenced perception, portraying HIV/AIDS as a consequence of the LGBT community’s “lifestyles choice,” fostering blame, victimization, and stigma against them (Bietsch, 2022).

Activists in the mid-twentieth century played a pivotal role in challenging medical diagnoses, advocating for social acceptance, and influencing medical research studies (CrawfordLackey, 2020). Protest became central to LGBT health history, prompting efforts to enhance understanding of AIDS, its transmission, susceptibility factors, and treatment options.

The intersectionality of race and sexual orientation became starkly evident during the AIDS crisis, especially concerning the efficacy of antiretroviral therapies (Crawford-Lackey, 2020). While a cocktail of approved medications showed promise for improving the quality of life and life expectancy of HIV-positive individuals in the United States, access to these therapies varied widely based on class and race, disproportionately affecting and discriminating against the Black LGBT community (Crawford-Lackey, 2020). Activism, involving protests, public education, advocacy for research funding, and fighting pervasive homophobia, illuminated the profound health consequences of structural discrimination. These intersectional ties, including racial, age, economic, and ability-based discrimination continue to impact the health experiences of the LGBTQ+ community (Crawford-Lackey, 2020).

LEGISLATIVE ATTACKS ON LGBTQ+ HEALTH EQUITY TODAY

The pressing need for LGBTQ+ health equity is notably prominent in the realm of genderaffirming care which encompasses medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary individuals, tailored to affirm and support one’s gender identity (Dawson L. a., 2024). Although this care has been recognized as medically necessary best practices, particularly for youth, over the past 18 months, the number of states imposing limitations on minor access has quintupled, soaring from four states in June 2022 (AL, AR, TX, AZ) to a staggering 23 states in January 2024 (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV) (Yurcaba, 2024). The recent legislative assault on LGBTQ+ healthcare, such as Ohio’s SAFE Act and Arkansas ’ HB 1570, known as the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act , reflect a concerning trend. Similar bills are pending consideration in numerous states nationwide.

These laws, instead, thrust the government into clinical decision-making, compelling physicians to defy established clinical guidelines and intervene in the patient-physician relationship. In this sanctified space, medical decisions should be guided by physicians’ ethical duty to prioritize the best interest of their patients, tailoring recommendations to unique circumstances. In a press release statement, the American Medical Association (AMA) emphasized the importance of preserving the patient-physician relationship and opposed legislative attempts to limit certain transition-related services for pediatric patients (American Medical Association, 2021). For instance, Arkansas’ SAFE Act and comparable bills infringe upon the autonomy of physicians and families, dictating that certain transition-related services are categorically inappropriate (Kaur, 2024).

This legislative interference violates the principles of patient-centered care and curtails the range of options available to physicians and families when making decisions for pediatric patients. Such governmental intrusion threatens the well-established principles that should guide medical decisions, raising profound concerns about the potential harm inflicted on the healthcare access and autonomy of the LGBTQ+ community (Kaur, 2024).

Gender-affirming care is highly individualized, as not all trans individuals seek the same types of services, and some choose non-medical approaches in their transition. Despite evidence supporting the positive impact of gender-affirming care on well-being, and the medical community’s endorsement, proponents of state restrictions argue that such policies are necessary to “protect children,” claiming that potential medical risks outweigh the benefits (Dawson L. a., 2024). The fight for the rights of transgender and non-binary individuals remains critical in the realm of human rights and social justice. Upholding and affirming the identities of trans and non-binary individuals not only aligns with principles of equality and dignity but also reflects a fundamental acknowledgment of each person’s right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. Access to gender-affirming care is not only a matter of medical necessity but also a fundamental human right that should be protected and made accessible to all who need it, regardless of their gender identity or expression.

CHALLENGES TO LGBTQ+ SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RIGHTS

All individuals, including those who identify as LGBTQ+, need access to sexual and reproductive health care, as it intersects with autonomy in intimate decisions. Barriers within the healthcare system, including service fragmentation, provider discrimination, and insurance issues, often compounded by racism and intersecting oppressions, contribute to these disparities (Casanova-Perez, 2021). Recent studies highlight alarming trends among queer individuals, with those capable of pregnancy, experiencing higher rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions due to structural barriers to contraceptive care and the lack of LGBTQ-inclusive comprehensive sex education (Casanova-Perez, 2021). Disparities also extend to perceptions of risk and preventive actions, as lesbian and bisexual women are less likely to perceive themselves at risk of STIs, leading to reduced use of preventive reproductive health services (Casanova-Perez, 2021). Furthermore, queer women are less likely to access routine preventive screenings for breast and cervical cancers compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Casanova-Perez, 2021).

The compounding effects of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity within the Black LGBTQ+ community create a complex intersectionality that significantly amplifies health disparities. Individuals experiencing intersecting oppressions, including being Black, Indigenous, or other people of color, those with disabilities, immigrants, and those with low income, confront heightened barriers to sexual and reproductive health care, reflecting the layers of systemic marginalization they endure (Dawson R. a., 2020). These challenges are exacerbated by bias within healthcare systems, particularly towards historically marginalized patients, leading to suboptimal patient-provider interactions, lower quality of care, and ultimately, poorer health outcomes for BIPOC and LGBTQ+ individuals (Casanova-Perez, 2021).

CHALLENGES TO LGBTQ+ MENTAL HEALTH

The Trevor Project’s 2019 National Survey on LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health revealed that Black LGBTQ+ youth experienced elevated levels of depressed mood and suicide ideation, with 66% reporting depressed mood in the past 12 months, 35% seriously considering suicide, and 19% attempting suicide during the same period (The Trevor Project, 2020). Notably, Black transgender and/or non-binary youth exhibited even higher rates, with double the likelihood of seriously considering (59%) and attempting suicide (32%) compared to cisgender Black LGBTQ+ youth (The Trevor Project, 2020). Even with similar rates of mental health disparities, Black LGBTQ+ youth were significantly less likely to receive professional care, with only 39% reporting psychological or emotional counseling from a professional in the past year, compared to 47% of LGBTQ+ youth overall (The Trevor Project, 2020). It is crucial to provide accessible mental health services that address systemic challenges, societal biases, and historical barriers that have impeded Black LGBTQ+ youth’s access to adequate mental health services.

CHALLENGES WITH HIV/AIDS RATES AMONG LGBTQ+ COMMUNITIES

There’s a growing urgency for LGBTQ+ health equity, especially considering the persistent rates of HIV and AIDS within the community. Historically, the healthcare model for addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ persons primarily adopted a disease-centric approach, especially evident during the HIV/AIDS crisis, before transitioning to a health equity model in the past two decades (Bietsch, 2022). Unfortunately, this disease-centered paradigm contributed to the scapegoating of the LGBTQ+ community, perpetuating stigma, and hindering collective efforts to effectively combat the epidemic. The impact of HIV/AIDS on the LGBTQ+ population, particularly men who have sex with men, has been enduring. Research reveals that individuals with HIV report poorer health and heightened depressive symptoms, influenced by factors such as lower income, resilience, social support, and a history of victimization (Bietsch, 2022). The lasting effects of the crisis are further

exacerbated by disparities in healthcare, where poorer health outcomes are associated with an increased prevalence of chronic conditions among those with HIV (Emlet, 2022). This underscores the critical need to depart from historical paradigms and embrace a holistic approach that addresses the diverse and intersectional needs of LGBTQ individuals. Legislative restrictions on gender-affirming care, escalating sexual health disparities, especially in HIV/AIDS rates, and persistent mental health challenges have created an alarming inequality in healthcare for young, Black individuals within the LGBTQ+ community.

Analysis of the Barriers to LGBTQ+ Quality Healthcare

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH

Navigating the healthcare landscape for the LGBTQ+ community involves confronting a multitude of social determinants that act as significant barriers to accessing equitable and inclusive healthcare. Economic disparities, characterized by employment and housing discrimination, contribute to the community’s struggle to secure stable living conditions, thereby impacting overall health outcomes. Limited insurance coverage compounds these challenges, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ+ individuals who frequently encounter obstacles in obtaining essential treatments. Additionally, geographical factors present further hurdles to healthcare access, with those outside metropolitan areas encountering difficulties reaching alternative services.

Economic challenges persist as significant barriers to healthcare access for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly impacting economic insecurity, employment discrimination, and housing discrimination, which have long-standing ties to healthcare needs (Mirza, 2018). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, disparities in health were already prevalent and have been further intensified during the crisis (Bietsch, 2022). Reports indicate that almost three in ten LGBTQI+ adults have faced housing discrimination or harassment due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersex status in the past year (Medina, 2023).

The economic disparities are evident through a range of workplace challenges, including termination, denial of promotions, reduction in work hours, and instances of verbal, physical, or sexual harassment (Medina, 2023). These discriminatory practices not only create hostile work environments but also contribute to significant hurdles in career advancement and financial stability. The repercussions of such disparities extend beyond the workplace, with over one-third of LGBTQI+ adults acknowledging the postponement or avoidance of medical care in the past year due to cost-related concerns (Medina, 2023).

Additionally, the LGBTQ+ community faces healthcare system obstacles, with limited health insurance coverage being a prominent barrier to receiving necessary treatments (HRC Foundation, n.d.), as evident by the studies that suggest that fewer LGBTQ+ individuals have private insurance (59%) compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts (64%) (Dawson L. a., 2024). Limited insurance coverage affects the ability of LGBTQ+ individuals to access healthcare, with uninsured individuals less likely to see a provider or have a wellness check-up in the past two years (Dawson L. a., 2024). LGBTQ+ individuals have higher rates of uninsurance compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Dawson R. a., 2020). Even those within the community who secure health insurance and seek competent care from medical providers encounter obstacles, particularly when insurers rely on gender markers in patient profiles. For instance, insurance denials for services deemed incongruent with traditional gender norms, such as contraceptive care for a transmasculine person (Dawson R. a., 2020). The resulting financial strain, whether due to uninsurance or discriminatory insurance practices, can lead to care delays or avoidance (Medina, 2023).

Geographical factors significantly impact LGBTQ+ healthcare access, particularly for those outside metropolitan areas. Individuals in non-metropolitan areas face difficulties accessing alternative transportation (e.g., public services, rely on rides), often due to the distance to such services and increased transportation costs (Mirza, 2018). Additionally, rurality exacerbates challenges, as LGBTQ+ social networks and knowledgeable healthcare professionals are less prevalent in rural areas (Ramsey, 2022). Although 20% of Americans reside in rural areas, data from the Association of American Medical Colleges indicates that only 11% of physicians choose to practice in these locations (Ramsey, 2022). The isolation faced by sexual and gender minorities in rural regions, coupled with shortages in healthcare providers and supportive services, contributes to a substantial disadvantage in obtaining quality healthcare (Ramsey, 2022).

PREVALENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AND STIGMA ON MENTAL HEALTH

The prevalence of discrimination and stigma within healthcare settings significantly impacts the mental health of the LGBTQ+ community, leading to higher rates of mental health issues and increased suicide rates. Discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to occur in healthcare settings compared to non-LGBTQI+ counterparts, creating complex systems of disadvantage, particularly for those at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities (Medina, 2023). Structural stigma, inequality, and discrimination manifest in various forms for transgender individuals, LGBTQI+ people of color, and LGBTQI+ individuals with disabilities (Medina, 2023). For transgender people, the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health noted that discrimination significantly affected mental well-being for 78% of individuals, with elevated numbers also observed for spiritual, physical, and financial well-being (The Trevor Project, 2020). Furthermore, LGBTQ+ respondents, including transgender or nonbinary individuals, reported taking actions to avoid discrimination, illustrating the pervasive impact and the lengths individuals go to shield themselves from such experiences (Medina, 2023). Despite anti-discrimination policies being mandated by The Joint Commission for accredited hospitals, adherence to these policies, particularly in the form of written non-discrimination standards, remains inconsistent. The Healthcare Equality Index by the HRC Foundation has revealed deficiencies in adopting comprehensive non-discrimination policies, emphasizing the need for vigilance among LGBTQ+ individuals to protect their rights and advocate for optimal care (HRC Foundation, n.d.).

LACK OF CULTURALLY COMPETENT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS

The lack of culturally competent healthcare providers also perpetuates significant barriers to LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to discriminatory treatment, delayed care-seeking, and disparities in healthcare access. Majorities of queer and transgender patients report experiencing discriminatory treatment from healthcare professionals, with nearly a quarter of transgender patients delaying healthcare seeking due to the fear of mistreatment (Dawson R. a., 2020). The broad struggle with cultural competency in the healthcare sector, defined as the ability of systems to provide care to patients with diverse values, beliefs, and behaviors, remains a pressing issue (Dawson R. a., 2020). LGBTQ+ individuals are more than three times as likely to delay or avoid medical care due to disrespect or discrimination from healthcare providers (Medina, 2023). Transgender individuals, particularly transgender people of color and LGBTQI+ people of color, reported higher rates of delaying or avoiding necessary medical care or preventive screenings (Medina, 2023). The failure of physicians to openly address sexual orientation with patients contributes to a lack of patient education on wellness and disease prevention, increasing the likelihood of adverse health outcomes

CPAR | Rainbow Resilience: Addressing State Legislation and Healthcare Disparities Among Black LGBT+ Communities (Bonvicini, 2017). Approximately one in three transgender individuals had to educate their doctors about transgender experiences to receive appropriate care, highlighting the critical role of culturally competent practitioners and inclusive graduate medical education to foster a supportive healthcare environment (Medina, 2023).

Cultural competence and cultural humility programs are crucial and must be tailored to address specific disparities within subgroups of the LGBTQ+ population. This necessitates the development of educational goals and competencies in medical curricula related to sex, sexuality, and gender-related clinical care (Bonvicini, 2017). Recognizing the importance of patient-physician relationships, the American Medical Association, emphasize the inappropriate and harmful nature of legislative dictates that limit transition-related services, advocating for individualized care decisions (American Medical Association, 2021). Moreover, leading sexual and reproductive health associations have integrated guidelines recognizing the needs of LGBTQ+ patients, emphasizing person-centered approaches in policies and guidelines (Dawson R. a., 2020). In rural areas, where providers may have limited experience with LGBTQ+ patients, targeted training programs become particularly advantageous in fostering effective communication and culturally competent care (Ramsey, 2022).

CPAR | Rainbow Resilience: Addressing State Legislation and Healthcare Disparities Among Black LGBT+ Communities

The impact of discrimination extends beyond healthcare settings, evident in exclusionary policies such as the military excluding gender-confirming surgery from veteran health benefits. The refusal of gender-affirming care due to legislations, increased sexual health disparities, alarming HIV and AIDS rates, and mental health challenges create a complex web of disparities for LGBTQ+ individuals, exacerbated by the intersectionality of racism. Bias, homophobia, transphobia, and governmental actions collectively contribute to the helplessness felt by the LGBTQ+ community, particularly the youth, in receiving equitable healthcare in the United States.

POLICY’S IMPACT ON LGBTQ+ HEALTH EQUITY

The impact of policy changes on the lives of the Black LGBTQ+ community, youth, and their families is a crucial aspect of healthcare access and discrimination. Recent legislation against LGBTQ+ health equity emphasizes the importance of inclusive graduate education training, particularly in medical schools. A 2011 survey revealed that over 33% of U.S. medical schools reported zero hours of LGBT-specific content in their curriculum during clinical and pre-clinical years (Bonvicini, 2017). This deficit in education can perpetuate a lack of awareness and understanding among healthcare professionals regarding the unique healthcare needs of LGBTQ+ individuals (Dawson R. a., 2020). Challenges in medical education persist despite policy documents and statements by organizations like the AAMC (The Association of American Medical Colleges), including a lack of effective curricular materials, absence of trained faculty, limited instruction time, and a perception among faculty that LGBT issues are not relevant to their courses (Bonvicini, 2017). Addressing these challenges requires ongoing education and training. Continuing medical education (CME) programs for physicians and clinicians play a crucial role in fostering competence, self-awareness, and cultural competency in providing patient-centered care for the LGBTQ+ community (Bonvicini, 2017). The Joint Commission on Accreditation encourages U.S. hospitals to create more welcoming and inclusive environments through staff training and the development of non-discriminatory policies and procedures, aiming to improve healthcare quality for LGBTQ+ individuals (Bonvicini, 2017).

Proposed policies should prioritize the elimination of barriers to comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally competent patient-centered care. This involves advocating for increased representation of LGBTQ+ healthcare needs in medical school curricula, providing adequate training for faculty, and integrating inclusive practices in national exams. Furthermore, policies should focus on creating a more inclusive hospital environment through staff training and the implementation of non-discriminatory policies and procedures, in alignment with recommendations from accreditation bodies like the Joint Commission (Bonvicini, 2017).

Advocating for LGBTQ+ rights demands implementing the comprehensive Healthcare Bill of Rights, ensuring equal access, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or age.

Over the last 13 years, the National Coalition for LGBT Health, under the guidance of Dr. Scout, Director of LGBT HealthLink, has championed the development of a Healthcare Bill of Rights for LGBTQ+ patients. While some aspects of the bill may be aspirational, its primary intent is to enhance public awareness regarding the provision of full equality and fairness to LGBTQ+ individuals in healthcare. Among the fundamental rights outlined in the healthcare document are:

• Equality and Respect (Deserves respect and a welcoming environment, and should not be denied service or given inferior service)

• Affirmation of True Gender Identity (Deserves to be called by chosen name and gender pronoun and has the right to use gender-based facilities of choice)

• Help Designating Decision-Makers (Should be informed about creating an advance directive and has the right to choose a decision-maker for medical decisions)

• Visitation by Anyone Chosen (Has the right to be visited by anyone chosen, regardless of legal or biological relationship, and can request facility rules if denied a visitor)

• Privacy (Has a right to privacy of medical records under HIPAA, and medical information can only be shared if necessary for care or with explicit permission)

• Protections Against Discrimination-Driven Discharge (Has the right to protest discharge due to discrimination and is entitled to information on appealing the decision and adequate time for transition planning). (Human Rights Campaign , n.d.)

This bill of rights serves as a tool for LGBTQ+ empowerment, enabling them to assert their rights and demand respectful treatment in healthcare settings. If individuals feel they have been treated disrespectfully by a provider or organization, they’re encouraged to file a complaint. Additionally, aligning with organizations that have compiled directories of welcoming providers offering inclusive healthcare can further support individuals in accessing affirming and respectful care. Furthermore, ensuring that policy proposals are comprehensive and intersectional helps eliminate existing barriers and foster a healthcare system that genuinely understands, respects, and caters to the diverse needs of Black LGBTQ+ communities. The impact of legislative decisions on LGBTQ+ health equity cannot be overstated, particularly concerning bills that punish healthcare providers for providing necessary treatments like puberty blockers and hormones to transgender individuals (Kaur, 2024). Such laws jeopardize the well-being of a vulnerable population already grappling with specific and exacerbated mental health challenges (The Trevor Project, 2020). By restricting access to gender-affirming care, these laws not only endanger the mental and physical health of LGBTQ+ individuals but also give the government undue authority.

Policy Recommendations

The policy recommendations outlined below strive to establish a healthcare system inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community, one that not only eradicates discrimination, but also actively fosters inclusivity, cultural competence, and equitable access for all individuals. This would foster an environment where everyone can receive healthcare with dignity and respect.

1. Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation: Enact and reinforce federal comprehensive anti-discrimination laws that explicitly protect individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race in healthcare settings. This includes stringent penalties for violators and mechanisms for reporting and addressing discriminatory practices.

2. Cultural Competency Training: Implement mandatory cultural competency training programs for all healthcare providers and professionals. These programs should address the unique healthcare needs of LGBTQ+ individuals, especially focusing on the experiences of young Black LGBTQ+ individuals, to ensure understanding, sensitivity, and inclusivity.

3. Inclusive Medical Education: Integrate LGBTQ+ health education into medical school curricula, ensuring that future healthcare providers are well-versed in the specific health concerns of LGBTQ+ individuals. This education should include topics related to gender-affirming care, mental health support, and the intersectionality of race and sexual orientation.

4. Patient Rights and Advocacy Programs: Establish clear patient rights and advocacy programs that empower individuals to be informed about and assert their rights in healthcare settings. This includes the right to be treated with equality, respect for one’s gender identity, and protection against discrimination.

5. Government Oversight and Accountability: Strengthen governmental oversight mechanisms to monitor healthcare facilities for compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Create accountability measures for institutions that fail to provide equitable care and ensure that corrective actions are taken promptly.

Conclusion

This research highlights the multitude of challenges that Black LGBTQ+ communities face in accessing equitable healthcare, stemming from systemic biases and societal inequities. Recognizing the intersectionality of race, sexual orientation, and gender is crucial as it exacerbates health disparities and places Black LGBTQ+ individuals in uniquely vulnerable positions. As we reflect on these challenges, there is a resounding call to action. Policymakers must prioritize health equity for Black LGBTQ+ individuals by enacting comprehensive and inclusive policies to address these barriers to healthcare access. A collaborative effort involving policymakers, healthcare providers, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and the broader community is essential to bring about lasting change. It is only through such collective endeavors and a commitment to understanding and dismantling systemic biases that we can pave the way for a healthcare system that truly serves and respects the diverse needs of all individuals, irrespective of their background or identity. The time to act is now to ensure a future where health equity is a reality for Black LGBTQ+ communities.

CPAR | Rainbow Resilience: Addressing State Legislation and Healthcare Disparities Among Black LGBT+ Communities

REFERENCES

American Medical Association. (2021, April 26). AMA to states: Stop interfering in health care of transgender children Retrieved from American Medical Association: https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-statesstop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children

Bietsch, B. (2022). Second Time Overlooked in Crisis: Examining How HIV/AID Health Policies in the USA Connect with Policy Implications Today for Aging LGBTQ Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. . Journal of human rights and social work, 246–255.

Bonvicini, K. A. (2017). LGBT healthcare disparities: What progress have we made?,. Science Direct, 2357-2361.

Casanova-Perez, R. A. (2021). Broken down by bias: Healthcare biases experienced by BIPOC and LGBTQ+ patients. AMIA Annu Symp Proc., 275–284.

Crawford-Lackey, K. a. (2020). Communities and Place: A Thematic Approach to the Histories of LGBTQ Communities in the United States. Berghahn Books.

Dawson, L. a. (2024, January 31). The Proliferation of State Actions Limiting Youth Access to Gender Affirming Care. Retrieved from KFF: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-proliferation-of-state-actions-limiting-youth-access-to-gender-affirming-care/

Dawson, R. a. (2020, November 16). Not Up for Debate: LGBTQ People Need and Deserve Tailored Sexual and Reproductive Health Care. Retrieved from Guttmacher Institutue Policy Analysis : https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2020/11/notdebate-lgbtq-people-need-and-deserve-tailored-sexual-and-reproductive-health#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20 pandemic%20may,with%2031%25%20of%20straight%20women

Emlet, C. A.-G. (2022). Accounting for HIV Health Disparities: Risk and Protective Factors Among Older Gay and Bisexual Men. . Journal of aging and health, 677–687.

HRC Foundation. (n.d.). Resources for LGBTQ+ Patients. Retrieved from Human Right Campaign : https://www.hrc.org/ resources/patient-resources

Human Rights Campaign . (n.d.). Know Your Healthcare Rights. Retrieved from Human Rights Campaign : https://www.hrc. org/resources/know-your-healthcare-rights

Kaur, A. (2024, January 24). Ohio lawmakers ban gender-affirming care for minors, overriding governor’s veto. Retrieved from The Washington Post : https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/01/24/transcare-veto-override/?pwapi_ token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9

Medina, C. a. (2023, January 12). Discrimination and Barriers to Well-Being: The State of the LGBTQI+ Community in 2022 Retrieved from CAP20: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/discrimination-and-barriers-to-well-being-the-stateof-the-lgbtqi-community-in-2022/

Mirza, S. A. (2018, Jan 18). Discrimination Prevents LGBTQ People From Accessing Health Care. Retrieved from CAP20: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/discrimination-prevents-lgbtq-people-accessing-healthcare/#:~:text=LGBTQ%20people%20living%20outside%20of,the%20potential%20to%20be%20higher Movement Advancement Project. (2024, January 31). HEALTHCARE LAWS AND POLICIES. Retrieved from Movement Advancement Project: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/healthcare_laws_and_policies Ramsey, Z. (2022, June 2022). WVU research finds LGBTQ people face barriers to health care, especially in rural areas Retrieved from WVUToday: https://wvutoday.wvu.edu/stories/2022/06/23/wvu-research-finds-lgbtq-people-facebarriers-to-health-care-especially-in-rural-areas

The Trevor Project. (2020, February 13). Black LGBTQ Youth Mental Health. Retrieved from The Trevor Project: https://www. thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/black-lgbtq-youth-mental-health/ Yurcaba, J. (2024, January 24). Ohio Senate overrides governor’s veto of transgender care restriction. Retrieved from NBC News : https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/ohio-senate-trans-sports-medical-caretransition-minors-rcna135332