Nov 14, 2025 12:22 AM
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1105745
INTRO: A University of Massachusetts Amherst study has found that gerrymandering in North Carolina resulted in reduced access to healthcare services. As states across the country grapple with politically charged redistricting efforts, the finding could ultimately offer a new strategy to fight gerrymandering in the courts, the researchers say.
“Access to healthcare should not be dependent on which party is in power,” says Auden Cote-L’Heureux, lead author of the paper published Nov. 13 in the American Journal of Public Health, which also issued an editorial piece on the research. “Healthcare should be protected from political whims.”
Cote-L’Heureux, a recent UMass Amherst graduate now studying for a master’s degree at the University of Bonn in Germany, carried out the research with senior author David Chin, assistant professor of health policy and management in the School of Public Health and Health Sciences.
They analyzed electoral, demographic and health center data to examine how gerrymandering may affect access to a federally qualified health center (FQHC), which provides primary and preventive healthcare services regardless of the ability to pay.
Redistricting is the constitutionally mandated practice of redrawing electoral districts as populations shift to ensure equal representation in the federal House of Representatives and state legislative bodies. Gerrymandering, on the other hand, is the redrawing of electoral districts to benefit a political party or candidate; the current Supreme Court has made gerrymandering difficult to litigate successfully, except in particular cases where it violates the Voting Rights Act.
“This is perhaps not the first, but I think the most rigorous assessment of this simple question – does this representation [created by gerrymandering] translate into either good or harm?” says Chin. “You can use publicly available data to infer political determinants of health.” (MORE - details, no ads)
INTRO: A University of Massachusetts Amherst study has found that gerrymandering in North Carolina resulted in reduced access to healthcare services. As states across the country grapple with politically charged redistricting efforts, the finding could ultimately offer a new strategy to fight gerrymandering in the courts, the researchers say.
“Access to healthcare should not be dependent on which party is in power,” says Auden Cote-L’Heureux, lead author of the paper published Nov. 13 in the American Journal of Public Health, which also issued an editorial piece on the research. “Healthcare should be protected from political whims.”
Cote-L’Heureux, a recent UMass Amherst graduate now studying for a master’s degree at the University of Bonn in Germany, carried out the research with senior author David Chin, assistant professor of health policy and management in the School of Public Health and Health Sciences.
They analyzed electoral, demographic and health center data to examine how gerrymandering may affect access to a federally qualified health center (FQHC), which provides primary and preventive healthcare services regardless of the ability to pay.
Redistricting is the constitutionally mandated practice of redrawing electoral districts as populations shift to ensure equal representation in the federal House of Representatives and state legislative bodies. Gerrymandering, on the other hand, is the redrawing of electoral districts to benefit a political party or candidate; the current Supreme Court has made gerrymandering difficult to litigate successfully, except in particular cases where it violates the Voting Rights Act.
“This is perhaps not the first, but I think the most rigorous assessment of this simple question – does this representation [created by gerrymandering] translate into either good or harm?” says Chin. “You can use publicly available data to infer political determinants of health.” (MORE - details, no ads)