3 ms·
To add in a slightly different angle, this sort of thing is not exclusive to America. For example, in New Zealand, a couple of weeks ago there was a bit of a k
by morepork 3y ago
To add in a slightly different angle, this sort of thing is not exclusive to America.
For example, in New Zealand, a couple of weeks ago there was a bit of a kerfuffle due to reporting on those of certain ethnicities being prioritised on surgical wait lists.
Those against it were arguing (validly) that prioritisation should only be based on clinical need.
However, the data over many years was showing that for people with the same clinical need, those from the minority ethnicities were not getting the same prioritisation.
So how do you resolve this? In an ideal world you will dig into the details, and figure out why that was happening, and resolve the underlying issues. But as with a lot of these problems with a human element there's no quick and easy solution.
Instead you get a "hack" like this to increase the weight of the minorities to even things out overall, hopefully to be removed later while you resolve the trickier issues.
Sometimes just targeting things to those in most need doesn't always fairly target across ethnic groups.
You can read a bit more detail about the NZ situation here:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ethnicity-a-factor-in-surgery-waitlists-for-years https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ethnicity-a-factor-in-surgery-wai...
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago> In an ideal world you will dig into the details, and figure out why that was happening, and resolve the underlying issues. But as with a lot of these problems with a human element there's no quick and easy solution. If they managed to identify that “the data over many years was showing that for people with the same clinical need, those from the minority ethnicities were not getting the same prioritisation”, it means they have done 95% of the required work already. So either the report is bogus, or the solution isn’t as complex as you make it to be.