D
deleted647690
The passage says that they controlled for "hospital characteristics, such as hospital revascularization rate". For some reason, that made me eliminate C and the possibility of institutional discrimination
Also, I was confused about what "medically indicated" means. If the procedure was medically indicated, but not followed through with, does that mean the individual provider on the case thought that the procedure was necessary, but due to the hospital's decision, it didn't occur?
If that is what medically indicated means, that would push me more towards B as an answer, because it says that the procedure was more medically indicated among whites. Therefore, some providers may show prejudice when making decisions about revascularization use.
And to follow up, if the evidence showed that the procedure was more medically indicated among certain races, doesn't that prove provider level discrimination? Since they are behaving differently based on race? This is given that my definition of "medically indicated" above is correct.
Also, I was confused about what "medically indicated" means. If the procedure was medically indicated, but not followed through with, does that mean the individual provider on the case thought that the procedure was necessary, but due to the hospital's decision, it didn't occur?
If that is what medically indicated means, that would push me more towards B as an answer, because it says that the procedure was more medically indicated among whites. Therefore, some providers may show prejudice when making decisions about revascularization use.
And to follow up, if the evidence showed that the procedure was more medically indicated among certain races, doesn't that prove provider level discrimination? Since they are behaving differently based on race? This is given that my definition of "medically indicated" above is correct.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator: