This was the conclusion of the article from Reuters, Broader Medicare could reduce disparities”:

…guaranteeing access to affordable insurance for all Americans is the essential first step toward a high performing health care system and a healthier America,” Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a statement.

Which is true, and I agree. But the study the author is referring to suggests lowering the age of Medicare (which will be unable to sustain itself economically in the future as it is). They base their suggestion on their results studying people between 40 and 85 years old with assorted chronic conditions. Here is what they found:

Differences as soon as these people hit 65 were clear, they found. “With near-universal Medicare coverage after age 65 years, differences in systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c levels, or total cholesterol levels reduced substantially.

Sounds great, right? Well, I’m not so sure. The study also pointed out the following:

Statistics also clearly show that blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic minorities die sooner, have poorer control of blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol than whites, and get treated later for certain forms of cancer — even when they have the same income, private insurance [bold and italics added by MedMinded] and education levels.

If minorities have the same mortality rate regardless of their insurance status, then why would Medicare make their situation any different? It is merely another form of insurance. There is more to the minority mortality rate problem than having health coverage after 65. In my opinion, focusing on finding ways for the entire population to acquire health insurance on their own without the possibility of being denied by insurance companies would have more favorable effects than merely lowering the age barrier for Medicare, which doesn’t address the disparities in health care during the years prior to the age of eligibility.