Achieving health equity in populations with congenital heart disease (CHD) requires recognizing existing disparities throughout the lifespan that negatively and disproportionately impact specific groups of individuals. These disparities occur at individual, institutional, or system levels and often result in increased morbidity and mortality for marginalized or racially minoritized populations (population subgroups (e.g., ethnic, racial, social, religious) with differential power compared to those deemed to hold the majority power in the population). Creating actionable strategies and solutions to address these health disparities in patients with CHD requires critically examining multilevel factors and health policies that continue to drive health inequities, including varying social determinants of health (SDOH), systemic inequities, and structural racism. In this comprehensive review article, we focus on health equity solutions and health policy considerations for minoritized and marginalized populations with CHD throughout their lifespan in the United States. We review unique challenges that these populations may face and strategies for mitigating disparities in lifelong CHD care. We assess ways to deliver culturally competent CHD care and to help lower-health-literacy populations navigate CHD care. Finally, we review system-level health policies that impact reimbursement and research funding, as well as institutional policies that impact leadership diversity and representation in the workforce.

Background: Despite improvements in survival over time, the mortality rate for infants with single‐ventricle heart disease remains high. Infants of low socioeconomic status (SES) are particularly vulnerable. We sought to determine whether use of a novel remote monitoring program, the Cardiac High Acuity Monitoring Program, mitigates differences in outcomes by SES. Methods and Results: Within the Cardiac High Acuity Monitoring Program, we identified 610 infants across 11 centers from 2014 to 2021. All enrolled families had access to a mobile application allowing for near‐instantaneous transfer of patient information to the care team. Patients were divided into SES tertiles on the basis of 6 variables relating to SES. Hierarchical logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounding characteristics, was used to determine the association between SES and death or transplant listing during the interstage period. Of 610 infants, 39 (6.4%) died or were listed for transplant. In unadjusted analysis, the rate of reaching the primary outcome between SES tertiles was similar ( P =0.24). Even after multivariable adjustment, the odds of death or transplant listing were no different for those in the middle (odds ratio, 1.7 [95% CI, 0.73–3.94) or highest (odds ratio, 0.997 [95% CI, 0.30, 3.36]) SES tertile compared with patients in the lowest (overall P value 0.4). Conclusions: In a large multicenter cohort of infants with single‐ventricle heart disease enrolled in a digital remote monitoring program during the interstage period, we found no difference in outcomes based on SES. Our study suggests that this novel technology could help mitigate differences in outcomes for this fragile population of patients.