# What Are the Economic Arguments for Mandating LGBT+ Health Training for Healthcare Providers? An Economic Evaluation of the Impacts of LGBT+ Health Training on Cervical Screening

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the economic effects of requiring LGBTQ+ health training for healthcare providers in England, focusing on cervical screening access for lesbian and bisexual women.

## Contribution

The paper introduces an economic evaluation framework for mandated LGBTQ+ health training, focusing on cervical screening equity.

## Key findings

- Mandated training may modestly increase healthcare costs due to higher screening volumes.
- Training could improve access and equity for lesbian and bisexual women in cervical screening.
- Opportunity costs are a key consideration in resource-constrained healthcare systems.

## Abstract

Background: Equitable access to healthcare is a priority of many healthcare systems, aiming to ensure access is driven by need and not minority groups such as those defined by sexual orientation. However, there are healthcare areas where inequity in access across sexual orientation groups is found that are not justified based on need. Mandated LGBTQ+-specific training of the healthcare workforce may help address some barriers of access for these groups. The study aims to understand the potential economic implications for mandated LGBTQ+-specific healthcare training on the healthcare system in England, UK to inform commissioning of training provision. Methods: Cervical cancer screening was used as an exemplar case where there appears to be inequity in access for different sexual orientation groups. A decision model was developed and analysed that considered the impacts of greater uptake of screening for lesbian and bisexual women due to LGBTQ+ training. Costs took the perspective of the healthcare system and outcomes modelled were cancer cases averted in a timeframe of 5 years. Results: Based on cervical cancer screening alone, where training costs are fully attributed to this service, training would likely result in fewer cancer cases detected in the lesbian and bisexual populations, though this comes at a modest increase in healthcare sector costs, with this increase largely reflecting a greater volume of screens. Training costs do not appear to be a major component of the cost implications. Conclusions: In resource-constrained systems with increasing pressures for efficiency savings, the opportunity cost of delivering training is a realistic component of the commissioning decision. The findings in this paper provide a signal that mandated LGBTQ+ training in healthcare could lead to potentially greater outcomes and in breaking down barriers of access and could also enable the healthcare system to provide more equitable access to healthcare.