Evidence mapPaperPMID 40152802Full record

ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2025

The time is now: Addressing health inequities in the workforce.

Bruce W Sherman, Brian Sils, Kimberly Westrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bruce W ShermanDepartment of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH.
Brian SilsNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, DC.
Kimberly WestrichNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, DC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a major provider of health insurance for working-age Americans, employers can play a significant role in improving the health equity of their employees and family members. In this commentary, we describe how different stakeholders, including employers, their employees, clinicians, and health systems and health plans, each contribute to the observed inequities. Other systems-level factors, including racism, implicit bias, medical mistrust, health literacy limitations, and health care access and affordability concerns have been also shown to contribute to inequitable outcomes. Opportunities exist for employers to improve health equity among their benefits-enrolled employees and family members using data-driven approaches to ensure that benefits are more equitable in scope, access, and affordability. As an illustrative example of employer strategic considerations, we describe opportunities to identify and address inequities in prescription medication use. Additionally, employers can, and perhaps should, advocate for transparency in community-based health system and health plan reporting regarding health inequities and progress toward more equitable health care utilization and outcomes. Employers can also advocate for the delivery of more patient-centered, systems-based solutions, such as enhanced primary care and/or worksite clinics, and give consideration to establishing health equity performance-based incentives in their health care contracting. Further research in the employer setting can help to expand the adoption of a best-practices approach to achieving more equitable health outcomes.

Indexed as

Health Benefit Plans, EmployeeHealthcare DisparitiesHealth InequitiesHealth EquityHealth Services AccessibilityHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40152802
PMCPMC11953865

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.