Americans are increasingly relying on crowdfunding to pay for the costs of healthcare. In medical crowdfunding (MCF), online platforms allow individuals to appeal to social networks to request donations for health and medical needs. Users are often told that success depends on how they organize and share their campaigns to increase social network engagement. However, experts have cautioned that MCF could exacerbate health and social disparities by amplifying the choices (and biases) of the crowd and leveraging these to determine who has access to financial support for healthcare. To date, research on potential axes of disparity in MCF, and their impacts on fundraising outcomes, has been limited. To answer these questions, this paper presents an exploratory cross-sectional study of a randomized sample of 637 MCF campaigns on the popular platform Gofundme, for which the race, gender, age, and relationships of campaigners and campaign recipients were categorized alongside campaign characteristics and outcomes. Using both descriptive and inferential statistics, the analysis examines race, gender, and age disparities in MCF use, and tests how these are associated with differential campaign outcomes. The results show systemic disparities in MCF use and outcomes: non-white users (and black women in particular) are under-represented; there is significant evidence of an additional digital care labor burden on women organizers of campaigns; and marginalized race and gender groups are associated with poorer fundraising outcomes. Outcomes are only minimally associated with campaign characteristics under users' control, such as photos, videos, and updates. These results corroborate widespread concerns how technology fuels health inequities, and about how crowdfunding may be creating an unequal and biased marketplace for those seeking financial support to access healthcare. Further research and better data access are needed to explore these dynamics more deeply and inform policy for this largely unregulated industry.

3921 adults randomly selected from across Great Britain were interviewed. Subjects were asked to assess a selection of 10 out of 200 vignettes. Each vignette contained four elements: a category of individual; access to some or all of the health record; specified purpose; and level of patient identifier. Subjects were asked to say how happy they would be to allow access to their health record in the circumstances described.The public were generally happy to provide access to health information. For almost a third of vignettes, subjects said that they would be very happy to allow access to their health information. 9.1% of subjects said that they would be very happy to allow access within all of the vignettes that they were asked to assess. There was however, a significant minority of responses (11.6%) to vignettes where subjects said that they would be very unhappy to allow access. In addition 2.1% of individuals said that they were very unhappy with all of the vignettes presented to them. Individuals from higher social groups, older people and males were more likely to be happy with access to their health information. The individual requesting information was the most important factor determining permission to access health information. Subjects were happier to release anonymised rather than personally identifiable data. Content of the information to be released did not seem to be that important, even when the health record contained sensitive information. With the exception of teaching students, the use of the information wasn't an important determinant of consent.Despite a level of support for use of health information in most circumstances, this doesn't mean that patients don't want to be asked for consent, nor that the views of the small minority can be ignored. The ethical and policy implications of these findings will be discussed.