For the 1 in 10 Ohioans who identify as LGBTQ+, media representation and social acceptance may have improved, but stigma and discrimination still impact them in large aspects of their lives, including healthcare access, a new report shows.
State data cited by the Health Policy Institute of Ohio showed that 10.6% of Ohioans are a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and a 2026 Health Value Dashboard released by the institute showed health disparities particularly in the area of mental health for LGBTQ+ Ohioans.
The data showed that gay, lesbian, and bisexual state residents are 2.6 times more likely than other Ohioans to report “frequent mental distress,” and transgender individuals are 3.5 times more likely to report it.
For researchers who study the impacts of policy and other efforts for and against the LGBTQ+ community, a consistent theme exists when it comes to a lack of support, resources, and even data showcasing this particular population.
“Stigma and discrimination against this community is a serious factor,” said Dr. JaNelle Ricks, an associate professor of public health at Ohio State University.
“It influences so many things, but it’s definitely going to influence things like the negative political rhetoric that we’re hearing in this country.”
Ricks has spent her career studying sexual and reproductive health for historically marginalized communities, and diving deep into the data surrounding HIV risk and prevention.
While there has been a strong focus on eradication of HIV for decades and some improvement over the years, “those who are most at risk and have the worst outcomes aren’t seeing the same level of improvement.”
While medications and treatments are available, the ability to disperse not only treatments but prevention education to the general public, especially communities of color and women, depends on stronger support at higher levels.
“It really has to do with the powers that be, in terms of funding that’s available and where they think the importance is to target, so if there isn’t the money to try to educate and get access for the communities that are most in need, it’s difficult to see change,” Ricks said.
Being able to access healthcare in general is a struggle for LGBTQ+ individuals, and with legislation in Ohio and elsewhere that banned gender-affirming care for minors, for example, a need for healthcare can often clash with the hesitation to seek help.
Through her studies primarily of LGBTQ+ youth and young adults, Dr. Lauren McInroy has observed a population that may be experiencing similar things to their peers, like mental health issues caused by bullying and cyberbullying, but the added layers of identity and struggles that come alongside them complicate matters.
“So it’s not that the population inherently has different health and mental health outcomes, it’s the realities that they live with every day,” McInroy said.
The stress of stigma and a lack of representation in their every day life, often combined with “minority stress,” for communities of color and other populations, creates “chronic cumulative stress,” a struggle that McInroy says has been coined “death by a thousand cuts.”
“All of that stress and the lack of social support and community is really what leads to disproportionately poor health and mental health outcomes, because you’re carrying that stress through the day with you,” she said.
Negative impacts online and in the world can create more longterm effects, not just for the individual, but also for the state and world as a whole.
“We see lowered productivity, so work in adults, and school successes in young people,” McInroy said. “There’s an increase in medical costs, because they are waiting longer to access care and that means they’re getting worse a lot of the time.”
Recognizing the ripple effects of one population’s health outcomes can be a powerful message for other Ohioans whose attention might be elsewhere.
LGBTQ+ individuals seek care less because of fears of discrimination, and also a lack of insurance access, which creates a sicker population, and one that risks dying as a result.
“Even if they had insurance, again, stigma and discrimination is an issue,” Ricks said. “You might have untrained providers, you might have unwelcoming environments, you might experience discriminatory treatment which is going to make you less likely to follow up, or seek additional healthcare, which again influences death and illness rates.”
A lack of data
Before any care can be given, though, advocates say it would be helpful to have a full picture of what kind of care is needed, and where the resources should go.
Ricks is part of Greater Columbus Insight, a group of researchers collecting data on the health and wellness of LGBTQ+ Ohioans in Columbus, home to the largest population in the state.
Through a community advisory board, listening sessions, and surveys, the group hopes to help local organizations establish programs, obtain funding, and advocate for policy.
Ricks said it’s important for the group to be able to collect data, partly to be able to provide it to advocates working on the ground to improve things.
“For those organizations, and policymakers, and decision makers who are interested in equitable distribution of resources, they need the information to be able to justify making decisions,” Ricks said.
But the data provided through the group’s research doesn’t only provide supplemental help for advocates, but in some cases represents the limited data that exists on LGBTQ+ health.
A report from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found measures related to gender identity and sexual orientation were removed from federal data collections, which the institute attributes largely to executive orders and policies from President Donald Trump saying that “transgender, nonbinary, and intersex identities would not be recognized by the federal government.”
In a study of the data from January 2025 to January 2026, the Williams Institute found that 94% of data elements that were removed from federal demographic collections were gender identity measures, and at least 60 collections also removed sexual orientation-related elements.
The analysis found that 23 collections removed sexual orientation or gender identity data “from bias motivation questions, precluding the ability to report discrimination on these bases,” and the majority of the eliminations were made through change requests made to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, not through a formal “notice-and-comment process.”
“These removals span multiple data collection types, including national surveys and surveillance systems, government-funded research studies, programmatic monitoring systems and evaluation studies, and administrative forms and records,” the institute’s study stated.
The type of data that had been removed is “essential for understanding the characteristics of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations … assessing and addressing their needs, allocating public and private resources, and developing impactful policy at the local, state, and federal levels,” according to the study.
Even when presented with data, however, Ohio lawmakers and national policymakers have still passed laws that experts say go against scientific evidence and public opinion about LGBTQ+ policy.
“A lot of lawmakers have access to data and have heard numbers and still are not making decisions that are in the best interest of this community,” Ricks said. “I think it really goes back to the stigma and discrimination piece.”
How to move forward
The Health Policy Institute of Ohio provided a look at an ideal environment for LGBTQ+ Ohioans through a proposal of what state data would look like if disparities for the population were eliminated.
According to the institute, removing disparities in health would result in 97,000 less gay, lesbian and bisexual Ohioans reporting frequent mental distress, along with nearly 31,000 less transgender residents reporting such distress.
More than 55,000 LGBTQ+ Ohioans would have the opportunity to see a doctor without the barrier of cost, and 54,000 fewer members of the community would report “poor overall health,” according to the institute’s 2026 Health Value Dashboard.
Putting that data into quantifiable steps requires nuance and commitment, according to McInroy and Ricks.
For McInroy, who studies the impacts of technology on LGBTQ+ youth and young adults, being online can have its faults, but can have its benefits as well.
“Technology is a risk, but also offers them a lot of opportunities to meet their mental health, behavioral health, and social needs that a lot of them don’t have access to otherwise,” McInroy said.
“They can go online, they can see media that reflects their identities, they can see alternative discourses they don’t otherwise have access to.”
There are also community-building opportunities, access to role models, and helpful resources.
Being able to access “LGBTQ-competent” care could go a long way to help improve the health of many youth and young adults in Ohio, and even just a change in the way the care is discussed could create a better landscape for those who need it, according to McInroy.
“Sometimes at the moment (gender-affirming care) is viewed as encouraging LGBTQ+ identity, particularly in the context of the discourse around minors,” she said.
“But what it really is is the ability to acknowledge and affirm their identity as they express it, and understanding … providing identity-specific care.”
The rhetoric at the higher levels of government can seem overwhelming to those fighting against LGBTQ+ stigma and negative impacts, but Ricks said smaller wins are building up to bigger ones.
“We are seeing, particularly on a local level in a lot of places, where people are amplifying their support,” Ricks said.
“And I think if we are focused on what we can do locally, and continue to be thoughtful about how we can build on that, that’s where, at this point in time, we can have the most impact.”
This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal under a Creative Commons license. View the original article.
