Identifying Opportunities to Strengthen the Public Health Informatics Infrastructure: Exploring Hospitals’ Challenges with Data Exchange

Policy Points

• Even though most hospitals have the technological ability to exchange data with public health agencies, the majority continue to experience challenges.
• Most challenges are attributable to the general resources of public health agencies, although workforce limitations, technology issues such as a lack of data standards, and policy uncertainty around reporting requirements also remain prominent issues.
• Ongoing funding to support the adoption of technology and strengthen the development of the health informatics workforce, combined with revising the promotion of the interoperability scoring approach, will likely help improve the exchange of electronic data between hospitals and public health agencies.

ContextThe novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has highlighted significant barriers in the exchange of essential information between hospitals and local public health agencies. Thus it remains important to clarify the specific issues that hospitals may face in reporting to public health agencies to inform focused approaches to improve the information exchange for the current pandemic as well as ongoing public health activities and population health management.MethodsThis study uses cross‐sectional data of acute‐care, nonfederal hospitals from the 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Information Technology supplement. Guided by the technology‐organization‐environment framework, we coded the responses to a question regarding the challenges that hospitals face in submitting data to public health agencies by using content analysis according to the type of challenge (i.e., technology, organization, or environment), responsible entity (i.e., hospital, public health agency, vendor, multiple), and the specific issue described. We used multivariable logistic and multinomial regression to identify characteristics of hospitals associated with experiencing the types of challenges.FindingsOur findings show that of the 2,794 hospitals in our analysis, 1,696 (61%) reported experiencing at least one challenge in reporting health data to a public health agency. Organizational issues were the most frequently reported type of challenge, noted by 1,455 hospitals. The most common specific issue, reported by 1,117 hospitals, was the general resources of public health agencies. An advanced EHR system and participation in a health information exchange both decreased the likelihood of not reporting experiencing a challenge and increased the likelihood of reporting an organizational challenge.ConclusionsOur findings inform policy recommendations such as improving data standards, increasing funding for public health agencies to improve their technological capabilities, offering workforce training programs, and increasing clarity of policy specifications and reporting. These approaches can improve the exchange of information between hospitals and public health agencies.     

Ethical and Legal Implications of Remote Monitoring of Medical Devices

Policy Points

• Millions of life‐sustaining implantable devices collect and relay massive amounts of digital health data, increasingly by using user‐downloaded smartphone applications to facilitate data relay to clinicians via manufacturer servers.
• Our analysis of health privacy laws indicates that most US patients may have little access to their own digital health data in the United States under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, whereas the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act grant greater access to device‐collected data.
• Our normative analysis argues for consistently granting patients access to the raw data collected by their implantable devices.

ContextMillions of life‐sustaining implantable devices collect and relay massive amounts of digital health data, increasingly by using user‐downloaded smartphone applications to facilitate data relay to clinicians via manufacturer servers. Whether patients have either legal or normative claims to data collected by these devices, particularly in the raw, granular format beyond that summarized in their medical records, remains incompletely explored.MethodsUsing pacemakers and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) as a clinical model, we outline the clinical ecosystem of data collection, relay, retrieval, and documentation. We consider the legal implications of US and European privacy regulations for patient access to either summary or raw device data. Lastly, we evaluate ethical arguments for or against providing patients access to data beyond the summaries presented in medical records.FindingsOur analysis of applicable health privacy laws indicates that US patients may have little access to their raw data collected and held by device manufacturers in the United States under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule, whereas the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) grants greater access to device‐collected data when the processing of personal data falls under the GDPR''s territorial scope. The California Consumer Privacy Act, the “little sister” of the GDPR, also grants greater rights to California residents. By contrast, our normative analysis argues for consistently granting patients access to the raw data collected by their implantable devices. Smartphone applications are increasingly involved in the collection, relay, retrieval, and documentation of these data. Therefore, we argue that smartphone user agreements are an emerging but potentially underutilized opportunity for clarifying both legal and ethical claims for device‐derived data.ConclusionsCurrent health privacy legislation incompletely supports patients’ normative claims for access to digital health data.     

Life Satisfaction and Subsequent Physical,Behavioral, and Psychosocial Health in Older Adults

Policy Points

• Several intergovernmental organizations (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, World Health Organization, United Nations) are urging countries to use well‐being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction) in addition to traditional economic indicators when making important policy decisions.
• As the number of governments implementing this new approach grows, so does the need to continue evaluating the health and well‐being outcomes we might observe from policies aimed at improving life satisfaction.
• The results of this study suggest that life satisfaction is a valuable target for policies aiming to enhance several indicators of psychosocial well‐being, health behaviors, and physical health outcomes.

ContextSeveral intergovernmental organizations (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, World Health Organization, United Nations) are urging countries to use well‐being indicators (e.g., life satisfaction) in addition to traditional economic indicators when making important policy decisions. As the number of governments implementing this new approach grows, so does the need to continue evaluating the health and well‐being outcomes we might observe from policies aimed at improving life satisfaction.MethodsWe evaluated whether positive change in life satisfaction (between t₀;2006/2008 and t₁;2010/2012) was associated with better outcomes on 35 indicators of physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health and well‐being (in t₂;2014/2016). Data were from 12,998 participants in the University of Michigan''s Health and Retirement Study—a prospective and nationally representative cohort of US adults over age 50.FindingsParticipants with the highest (versus lowest) life satisfaction had better subsequent outcomes on some physical health indicators (lower risk of pain, physical functioning limitations, and mortality; lower number of chronic conditions; and higher self‐rated health) and health behaviors (lower risk of sleep problems and more frequent physical activity), and nearly all psychosocial indicators (higher positive affect, optimism, purpose in life, mastery, health mastery, financial mastery, and likelihood of living with spouse/partner; and lower depression, depressive symptoms, hopelessness, negative affect, perceived constraints, and loneliness) over the 4‐year follow‐up period. However, life satisfaction was not subsequently associated with many specific health conditions (i.e., diabetes, hypertension, stroke, cancer, heart disease, lung disease, arthritis, overweight/obesity, or cognitive impairment), other health behaviors (i.e., binge drinking or smoking), or frequency of contact with children, family, or friends.ConclusionsThese results suggest that life satisfaction is a valuable target for policies aiming to enhance several indicators of psychosocial well‐being, health behaviors, and physical health outcomes.     

Self-Rated Health and Residential Segregation: How Does Race/Ethnicity Matter?

Despite recent declines, racial segregation remains a detriment to minority neighborhoods. However, existing research is inconclusive as to the effects racial segregation has on health. Some argue that racial segregation is related to poor health outcomes, whereas others suspect that racial segregation may actually lead to improved health for some minority communities. Even less is known about whether minority access to white neighborhoods improves health. We address these gaps with individual data from the 2010 Public Health Management Corporation’s Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health Survey and census tract data from the 2010 Decennial Census and the 2006–2010 American Community Survey. We implement logistic multilevel models to determine whether and how a resident’s self-rated health is affected by the racial/ethnic segregation of their neighborhoods. Our key finding suggests that the effects of segregation on self-rated health depend on an individual’s race/ethnicity, with blacks and Latino residents most likely to experience adverse effects. Particularly, minorities living in predominantly white communities have a significantly higher likelihood to report poor/fair health than they would in segregated minority neighborhoods. These findings make clear that access to white neighborhoods is not sufficient to improve minority health; fuller neighborhood integration is necessary to ensure all have health equity.     

COVID‐19: The Time for Collaboration Between Long‐Term Services and Supports,Health Care Systems,and Public Health Is Now

Policy Points

• To address systemic problems amplified by COVID‐19, we need to restructure US long‐term services and supports (LTSS) as they relate to both the health care systems and public health systems. We present both near‐term and long‐term policy solutions.
• Seven near‐term policy recommendations include requiring the uniform public reporting of COVID‐19 cases in all LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering protections for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for vulnerable populations.
• Long‐term reform should focus on comprehensive workforce development, comprehensive LTSS financing reform, and the creation of an age‐friendly public health system.

ContextThe heavy toll of COVID‐19 brings the failings of the long‐term services and supports (LTSS) system in the United States into sharp focus. Although these are not new problems, the pandemic has exacerbated and amplified their impact to a point that they are impossible to ignore. The primary blame for the high rates of COVID‐19 infections and deaths has been assigned to formal LTSS care settings, specifically nursing homes. Yet other systemic problems have been unearthed during this pandemic: the failure to coordinate the US public health system at the federal level and the effects of long‐term disinvestment and neglect of state‐ and local‐level public health programs. Together these failures have contributed to an inability to coordinate with the LTSS system and to act early to protect residents and staff in the LTSS care settings that are hotspots for infection, spread, and serious negative health outcomes.MethodsWe analyze several impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on the US LTSS system and policy arrangements. The economic toll on state budgets has been multifaceted, and the pandemic has had a direct impact on Medicaid, the primary funder of LTSS, which in turn has further exacerbated the states’ fiscal problems. Both the inequalities across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as the increased burden on unpaid caregivers are clear. So too is the need to better integrate LTSS with the health, social care, and public health systems.FindingsWe propose seven near‐term actions that US policymakers could take: implementing a uniform public reporting of COVID‐19 cases in LTSS settings; identifying and supporting unpaid caregivers; bolstering support for the direct care workforce; increasing coordination between public health departments and LTSS agencies and providers; enhancing collaboration and communication across health, LTSS, and public health systems; further reducing the barriers to telehealth in LTSS; and providing incentives to care for our most vulnerable populations. Our analysis also demonstrates that our nation requires comprehensive reform to build the LTSS system we need through comprehensive workforce development, universal coverage through comprehensive financing reform, and the creation of an age‐friendly public health system.ConclusionsCOVID‐19 has exposed the many deficits of the US LTSS system and made clear the interdependence of LTSS with public health. Policymakers have an opportunity to address these failings through a substantive reform of the LTSS system and increased collaboration with public health agencies and leaders. The opportunity for reform is now.     

Linking Data on Constituent Health with Elected Officials’ Opinions: Associations Between Urban Health Disparities and Mayoral Officials’ Beliefs About Health Disparities in Their Cities

Policy Points

• Mayoral officials’ opinions about the existence and fairness of health disparities in their city are positively associated with the magnitude of income‐based life expectancy disparity in their city.
• Associations between mayoral officials’ opinions about health disparities in their city and the magnitude of life expectancy disparity in their city are not moderated by the social or fiscal ideology of mayoral officials or the ideology of their constituents.
• Highly visible and publicized information about mortality disparities, such as that related to COVID‐19 disparities, has potential to elevate elected officials’ perceptions of the severity of health disparities and influence their opinions about the issue.

ContextA substantive body of research has explored what factors influence elected officials’ opinions about health issues. However, no studies have assessed the potential influence of the health of an elected official''s constituents. We assessed whether the magnitude of income‐based life expectancy disparity within a city was associated with the opinions of that city''s mayoral official (i.e., mayor or deputy mayor) about health disparities in their city.MethodsThe independent variable was the magnitude of income‐based life expectancy disparity in US cities. The magnitude was determined by linking 2010‐2015 estimates of life expectancy and median household income for 8,434 census tracts in 224 cities. The dependent variables were mayoral officials’ opinions from a 2016 survey about the existence and fairness of health disparities in their city (n = 224, response rate 30.3%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for characteristics of mayoral officials (e.g., ideology) and city characteristics.FindingsIn cities in the highest income‐based life expectancy disparity quartile, 50.0% of mayoral officials “strongly agreed” that health disparities existed and 52.7% believed health disparities were “very unfair.” In comparison, among mayoral officials in cities in the lowest disparity quartile 33.9% “strongly agreed” that health disparities existed and 22.2% believed the disparities were “very unfair.” A 1‐year‐larger income‐based life expectancy disparity in a city was associated with 25% higher odds that the city''s mayoral official would “strongly agree” that health disparities existed (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; P = .04) and twice the odds that the city''s mayoral official would believe that such disparities were “very unfair” (OR = 2.24; P <.001).ConclusionsMayoral officials’ opinions about health disparities in their jurisdictions are generally aligned with, and potentially influenced by, information about the magnitude of income‐based life expectancy disparities among their constituents.     

Rapid Transition to Telehealth and the Digital Divide: Implications for Primary Care Access and Equity in a Post‐COVID Era

Policy Points

• Telehealth has many potential advantages during an infectious disease outbreak such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, and the COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to telehealth as a prominent care delivery mode.
• Not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in the telehealth revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic.
• Without proactive efforts to address both patient‐ and provider‐related digital barriers associated with socioeconomic status, the wide‐scale implementation of telehealth amid COVID‐19 may reinforce disparities in health access in already marginalized and underserved communities.
• To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them.

ContextThe COVID‐19 pandemic has catalyzed fundamental shifts across the US health care delivery system, including a rapid transition to telehealth. Telehealth has many potential advantages, including maintaining critical access to care while keeping both patients and providers safe from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus. However, not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in this digital revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic.MethodsThe study analyzed data about small primary care practices’ telehealth use and barriers to telehealth use collected from rapid‐response surveys administered by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene''s Bureau of Equitable Health Systems and New York University from mid‐April through mid‐June 2020 as part of the city''s efforts to understand how primary care practices were responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic following New York State''s stay‐at‐home order on March 22. We focused on small primary care practices because they represent 40% of primary care providers and are disproportionately located in low‐income, minority or immigrant areas that were more severely impacted by COVID‐19. To examine whether telehealth use and barriers differed based on the socioeconomic characteristics of the communities served by these practices, we used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to stratify respondents as being in high‐SVI or low‐SVI areas. We then characterized respondents’ telehealth use and barriers to adoption by using means and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. In addition to a primary analysis using pooled data across the five waves of the survey, we performed sensitivity analyses using data from respondents who only took one survey, first wave only, and the last two waves only.FindingsWhile all providers rapidly shifted to telehealth, there were differences based on community characteristics in both the primary mode of telehealth used and the types of barriers experienced by providers. Providers in high‐SVI areas were almost twice as likely as providers in low‐SVI areas to use telephones as their primary telehealth modality (41.7% vs 23.8%; P <.001). The opposite was true for video, which was used as the primary telehealth modality by 18.7% of providers in high‐SVI areas and 33.7% of providers in low‐SVI areas (P <0.001). Providers in high‐SVI areas also faced more patient‐related barriers and fewer provider‐related barriers than those in low‐SVI areas.ConclusionsBetween April and June 2020, telehealth became a prominent mode of primary care delivery in New York City. However, the transition to telehealth did not unfold in the same manner across communities. To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them.     

Upstream Policy Changes to Improve Population Health and Health Equity: A Priority Agenda

Policy Points

• Upstream factors—social structures/systems, cultural factors, and public policy—are primary forces that drive downstream patterns and inequities in health that are observed across race and locations.
• A public policy agenda that aims to address inequities related to the well-being of children, creation and perpetuation of residential segregation, and racial segregation can address upstream factors.
• Past successes and failures provide a blueprint for addressing upstream health issues and inhibit health equity.

     

Nativity and language preference as drivers of health information seeking: examining differences and trends from a U.S. population-based survey

Objective: To examine differences in health information seeking between U.S.-born and foreign-born populations in the U.S.

Design: Data from 2008 to 2014 from the Health Information National Trends Survey were used in this study (n?=?15,249). Bivariate analyses, logistic regression, and predicted probabilities were used to examine health information seeking and sources of health information.

Results: Findings demonstrate that 59.3% of the Hispanic foreign-born population reported looking for health information, fewer than other racial/ethnic groups in the sample. Compared with non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black (OR?=?0.62) and Hispanic foreign-born individuals (OR?=?0.31) were the least likely to use the internet as a first source for health information. Adjustment for language preference explains much of the disparity in health information seeking between the Hispanic foreign-born population and Whites; controlling for nativity, respondents who prefer Spanish have 0.25 the odds of using the internet as a first source of health information compared to those who prefer English.

Conclusion: Foreign-born nativity and language preference are significant determinants of health information seeking. Further research is needed to better understand how information seeking patterns can influence health care use, and ultimately health outcomes. To best serve diverse racial and ethnic minority populations, health care systems, health care providers, and public health professionals must provide culturally competent health information resources to strengthen access and use by vulnerable populations, and to ensure that all populations are able to benefit from evolving health information sources in the digital age.     

Changes in health insurance coverage,access to care,and health services utilization by sexual minority status in the United States, 2013‐2018

ObjectiveTo examine the changes in health insurance coverage, access to care, and health services utilization among nonelderly sexual minority and heterosexual adults between pooled years 2013‐2014 and 2017‐2018.Data SourcesData on 3223 sexual minorities (lesbians, gay men, bisexual individuals, and other nonheterosexual populations) and 86 181 heterosexuals aged 18‐64 years were obtained from the 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018 National Health Interview Surveys.Study DesignUnadjusted and regression‐adjusted estimates compared changes in health insurance status, access to care, and health services utilization for nonelderly adults by sexual minority status. Regression‐adjusted changes were obtained from logistic regression models controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.Principal FindingsUninsurance declined for both sexual minority adults (5 percentage points, P < .05) and heterosexual adults (2.5 percentage points, P < .001) between 2013‐2014 and 2017‐2018. Reductions in uninsurance for sexual minority and heterosexual adults were associated with increases in Medicaid coverage. Sexual minority and heterosexual adults were also less likely to report unmet medical care in 2017‐2018 compared with 2013‐2014. Low‐income adults (regardless of sexual minority status) experienced relatively large increases in Medicaid coverage and substantial improvements in access to care over the study period. The gains in coverage and access to care across the study period were generally similar for heterosexual and sexual minority adults.ConclusionsSexual minority and heterosexual adults have experienced improvements in health insurance coverage and access to care in recent years. Ongoing health equity research and public health initiatives should continue to monitor health care access and the potential benefits of recent health insurance expansions by sexual orientation and sexual minority status when possible.     

A Commons for a Supply Chain in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The Case for a Reformed Strategic National Stockpile

Policy Points

• Reflecting on current response deficiencies, we offer a model for a national contingency supply chain cell (NCSCC) construct to manage the medical materials supply chain in support of emergencies, such as COVID‐19. We develop the following:
  • a framework for governance and response to enable a globally independent supply chain;
  • a flexible structure to accommodate the requirements of state and county health systems for receiving and distributing materials; and
  • a national material “control tower” to improve transparency and real‐time access to material status and location.

ContextMuch of the discussion about the failure of the COVID‐19 supply chain has centered on personal protective equipment (PPE) and the degree of vulnerability of care. Prior research on supply chain risks have focused on mitigating the risk of disruptions of specific purchased materials within a bounded region or on the shifting status of cross‐border export restrictions. But COVID‐19 has impacted every purchase category, region, and border. This paper is responsive to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommendation to study and monitor disasters and to provide governments with course of action to satisfy legislative mandates.MethodsOur analysis draws on our observations of the responses to COVID‐19 in regard to acquisition and contracting problem‐solving, our review of field discussions and interactions with experts, a critique of existing proposals for managing the strategic national stockpile in the United States a mapping of the responses to national contingency planning phases, and the identification of gaps in current national healthcare response policy frameworks and proposals.FindingsCurrent proposals call for augmenting a system that has failed to deliver the needed response to COVID‐19. These proposals do not address the key attributes for pandemic plan renewal: flexibility, traceability and transparency, persistence and responsiveness, global independence, and equitable access. We offer a commons‐based framework for achieving the opportunities and risks which are responsive to a constellation of intelligence assets working in and across focal targets of global supply chain risk.ConclusionsThe United States needs a “commons‐based strategy” that is not simply a stockpile repository but instead is a network of repositories, fluid inventories, and analytic monitoring governed by the experts. We need a coordinated effort, a “commons” that will direct both conventional and new suppliers to meet demands and to eliminate hoarding and other behaviors.     

Educational Inequalities in Hospital Use Among Older Adults in England, 2004-2015

Policy Points

• US policymakers considering proposals to expand public health care (such as “Medicare for all”) as a means of reducing inequalities in health care access and use could learn from the experiences of nations where well‐funded universal health care systems are already in place.
• In England, which has a publicly funded universal health care system, the use of core inpatient services by adults 65 years and older is equal across groups defined by education level, after controlling for health status. However, variation among these groups in the use of outpatient and emergency department care developed between 2010 and 2015, a period of relative financial austerity.
• Based on England''s experience, introducing universal health care in the United States seems likely to reduce, but not entirely eliminate, inequalities in health care use across different population groups.

ContextExpanding access to health care is once again high on the US political agenda, as is concern about those who are being “left behind.” But is universal health care that is largely free at the point of use sufficient to eliminate inequalities in health care use? To explore this question, we studied variation in the use of hospital care among education‐level‐defined groups of older adults in England, before and after controlling for differences in health status. In England, the National Health Service (NHS) provides health care free to all, but the growth rate for NHS funding has slowed markedly since 2010 during a widespread austerity program, potentially increasing inequalities in access and use.MethodsNovel linkage of data from six waves (2004‐2015) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) with participants’ hospital records (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES]) produced longitudinal data for 7,713 older adults (65 years and older) and 25,864 observations. We divided the sample into three groups by education level: low (no formal qualifications), mid (completed compulsory education), and high (at least some higher education). Four outcomes were examined: annual outpatient appointments, elective inpatient admissions, emergency inpatient admissions, and emergency department (ED) visits. We estimated regressions for the periods 2004‐2005 to 2008‐2009 and 2010‐2011 to 2014‐2015 to examine whether potential education‐related inequalities in hospital use increased after the growth rate for NHS funding slowed in 2010.FindingsFor the study period, our sample of ELSA respondents in the low‐education group made 2.44 annual outpatient visits. In comparison, after controlling for health status, we found that participants in the high‐education group made an additional 0.29 outpatient visits annually (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11‐0.47). Additional outpatient health care use in the high‐education group was driven by follow‐up and routine appointments. This inequality widened after 2010. Between 2010 and 2015, individuals in the high‐education group made 0.48 (95% CI, 0.21‐0.74) more annual outpatient visits than those in the low‐education (16.9% [7.5% to 26.2%] of annual average 2.82 visits). In contrast, after 2010, the high‐education group made 0.04 (95% CI, −0.075 to 0.001) fewer annual ED visits than the low‐education group, which had a mean of 0.30 annual ED visits. No significant differences by education level were found for elective or emergency inpatient admissions in either period.ConclusionsAfter controlling for demographics and health status, there was no evidence of inequality in elective and emergency inpatient admissions among the education groups in our sample. However, a period of financial budget tightening for the NHS after 2010 was associated with the emergence of education gradients in other forms of hospital care, with respondents in the high‐education group using more outpatient care and less ED care than peers in the low‐education group. These estimates point to rising inequalities in the use of hospital care that, if not reversed, could exacerbate existing health inequalities in England. Although the US and UK settings differ in many ways, our results also suggest that a universal health care system would likely reduce inequality in US health care use.     

The Structure and Financing of Health Care Systems Affected How Providers Coped With COVID‐19

Policy Points

• We compared the structure of health care systems and the financial effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on health care providers in the United States, England, Germany, and Israel: systems incorporating both public and private insurers and providers.
• The negative financial effects on health care providers have been more severe in the United States than elsewhere, owing to the prevalence of activity‐based payment systems, limited direct governmental control over available provider capacity, and the structure of governmental financial relief.
• In a pandemic, activity‐based payment reverses the conventional financial positions of payers and providers and may prevent providers from prioritizing public health because of the desire to avoid revenue loss caused by declines in patient visits.

Financial distress in the health care sector is a nonintuitive consequence of a pandemic. Yet, in the United States, the budgets of health care providers are under considerable strain as the COVID‐19 pandemic continues.Analysts anticipate that these continuing financial challenges will generate a wave of consolidation among hospitals and physician practices through 2021. ¹ Critical access hospitals, hospitals serving vulnerable populations, and independent primary care practices are particularly threatened. ² , ³ These dire financial outcomes arose through the interaction of the public health measures taken in response to the COVID‐19 epidemic, particularly the shutdown of elective procedures, along with the underlying structure of US health care financing and the US government''s emergency response.But COVID‐19 is a global epidemic. The twin effects of COVID‐19 treatment and reduced non‐COVID treatment have dramatically changed the number and case mix of patients treated in similar ways across high‐income countries. In all countries, the number of acutely ill patients with COVID rose while the number of patients with other conditions fell. The effects of these changes on health care providers’ finances have varied, however, depending on how health care systems are ordinarily structured and financed and to what extent government actions protected health care providers. By comparing the financial effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United States and three other health care systems (England, Germany, and Israel) that incorporate both public and private insurers and providers, we can identify the governmental and policy factors that contributed to the severity and distribution of the effects of COVID‐19 on US providers.In all four countries, the impacts of COVID on the utilization of health care were similar. During infection surges, the number of COVID patients stressed hospitals, and as a result, nonurgent services for non‐COVID patients were postponed or forgone. The governments of all four countries directly supported health care providers with funding for increased COVID‐related expenditures (such as for personal protective equipment). The governments of all four countries also protected and compensated health care providers for their financial losses, but they did so in different ways, reflecting the structure of their health systems. In Israel, which uses relatively little activity‐based financing, the government saw less need for dedicated financial assistance. The governments of Germany and England shifted the form of payment away from activity‐based financing toward budgets to provide financial protection to health care providers, particularly in hospitals. Finally, in the United States, where activity‐based payment is prevalent and the health care–financing system is far too fragmented to permit a rapid switch in the method of payment, the government directly compensated providers for lost revenue.     

Population Health Science: Fulfilling the Mission of Public Health

Policy Points

• The historical mission of public health is to ensure the conditions in which people can be healthy, and yet the field of public health has been distracted from this mission by an excessive reliance on randomized‐control trials, a lack of formal theoretical models, and a fear of politics.
• The field of population health science has emerged to rigorously address all of these constraints. It deserves ongoing and formal institutional support.

The united states is failing in population health. life expectancy in the United States is falling for the first time since reliable mortality records have been available, and health equity has been on a downward trend for decades. ¹ Why is the United States, among the richest countries in the world, failing to protect the health of its residents? A dysfunctional medical system that pays for sickness rather than wellness is certainly part of the problem, but so is confusion about the role of public health in the United States.     

Disparities in Confidence to Manage Chronic Diseases in Men

BackgroundChronic diseases are highly prevalent among men in the United States and chronic disease management is problematic for men, particularly for racial and ethnic minority men.ObjectivesThis study examined the association between health information seeking and confidence to manage chronic diseases among men.MethodsStudy data were drawn from the 2007 Health Tracking Household Survey and analyzed using multiple binary logistic regressions. The analytical sample included 2,653 men, 18 years and older with a chronic illness. Results: Health information seeking was not associated with confidence to manage chronic illnesses. African-American men had lower odds than White men to agree to take actions to prevent symptoms with their health. Hispanic men had lower odds than White men to agree to tell a doctor concerns they have, even when not asked.ConclusionsRacial and ethnic minority men with a chronic condition appear to be less confident to manage their health compared to white men. Chronic disease management needs greater exploration to understand the best ways to help racial and ethnic minority men successfully manage their chronic condition.     

Abortion Policy in the United States: The New Legal Landscape and Its Threats to Health and Socioeconomic Well-Being

Policy Points

• The historic 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has created a new public policy landscape in the United States that will restrict access to legal and safe abortion for a significant proportion of the population.
• Policies restricting access to abortion bring with them significant threats and harms to health by delaying or denying essential evidence-based medical care and increasing the risks for adverse maternal and infant outcomes, including death.
• Restrictive abortion policies will increase the number of children born into and living in poverty, increase the number of families experiencing serious financial instability and hardship, increase racial inequities in socioeconomic security, and put significant additional pressure on under-resourced social welfare systems.

     

Weathering in Detroit: Place,Race, Ethnicity,and Poverty as Conceptually Fluctuating Social Constructs Shaping Variation in Allostatic Load

Policy Points

• Despite 30 years of attention to eliminating population health inequity, it remains entrenched, calling for new approaches.
• Targeted universalism, wellness‐based local development, and Jedi Public Health approaches that are community informed, evidence based, and focused on improving everyday settings and diverse lived experiences are important policy directions.
• State and federal revenue transfers are necessary to mitigate the harms of austerity and assure greater equity in fiscal and population health in places like Detroit, Michigan.

ContextUS population health inequity remains entrenched, despite mandates to eliminate it. To promote a public health approach of consequence in this domain, stakeholders call for moving from risk‐factor epidemiology toward consideration of dynamic local variations in the physiological impacts of structured lived experience.MethodsUsing a community‐based, participatory research approach, we collected and analyzed a unique data set of 239 black, white, and Mexican adults from a stratified, multistage probability sample of three Detroit, Michigan, neighborhoods. We drew venous blood, collected saliva, took anthropometric measurements, and assayed specimens to measure allostatic load (AL), an indicator of stress‐mediated biological dysregulation, linking participants’ AL scores and survey responses. In a series of nested Poisson models, we regressed AL on socioeconomic, psychosocial, neighborhood, and behavioral stressors to test the hypothesis that race/ethnicity and poverty‐to‐income ratio (PIR) are conceptually fluctuating variables whose impacts on AL are sensitive to structured lived experience.FindingsWhite and Mexican Detroit participants with PIR < 1 have higher AL than counterparts nationally; black participants in Detroit and nationwide had comparable AL. Within Detroit, disparities by PIR were higher in whites than blacks, with no significant difference by PIR in Mexicans. The size of estimated effects of having PIR < 1 for whites is 58 percentage points greater than that of Mexicans and twice that of blacks.ConclusionsStructurally rooted unobserved heterogeneity bias threatens the validity of independent main effects interpretations of associations between race/ethnicity, socioeconomic characteristics, or place and health. One‐size‐fits‐all analytic or policy models developed from the perspective of the dominant social group insufficiently address the experiences of diverse populations in specific settings and historical moments; nor do they recognize culturally mediated protective resources residents may have developed against material and psychosocial hardship.     

Racial/ethnic health disparities among children with special health care needs in Boston,Massachusetts

BackgroundLittle is known about the factors that contribute to racial/ethnic disparities among children with special health care needs (CSHCN).ObjectiveTo quantify the contributions of determinants of racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care among CSHCN in Boston, Massachusetts.MethodsA sample of 326 Black, Latino, and white CSHCN was drawn from the Boston Survey of Children's Health, a city-wide representative sample of children. The study implemented Oaxaca–Blinder-style decomposition techniques to examine the relative contributions of health resources and child-, family-, and neighborhood-level factors to disparities in four outcomes: health status, barriers to medical care, oral health status, and utilization of preventive dental care.ResultsWhite CSHCN had a greater likelihood of having very good/excellent health and oral health and were less likely to experience barriers to care than Black CSHCN. Compositional differences on predictors explained 63%, 98%, and 80% of these gradients, respectively. Group variation in household income, family structure, neighborhood support, and exposure to adverse childhood experiences accounted for significant portions of the Black–white gaps in health and access. White CSHCN were also more likely to have very good/excellent health and oral health compared to Latino CSHCN. Differences on predictors accounted for about 86% and 80% of these gaps, respectively. Household income, adverse childhood experiences, and household language emerged as significant determinants of Latino–white disparities.ConclusionsRacial/ethnic health disparities among CSHCN are explained by relatively few determinants. Several of the contributing factors that emerged from the analysis and could be targeted by public health and policy interventions.     

Ethnic Disparities in Self-Reported Oral Health Status and Access to Care among Older Adults in NYC

There is a growing burden of oral disease among older adults that is most significantly borne by minorities, the poor, and immigrants. Yet, national attention to oral heath disparities has focused almost exclusively on children, resulting in large gaps in our knowledge about the oral health risks of older adults and their access to care. The projected growth of the minority and immigrant elderly population as a proportion of older adults heightens the urgency of exploring and addressing factors associated with oral health-related disparities. In 2008, the New York City Health Indicators Project (HIP) conducted a survey of a representative sample of 1,870 adults over the age of 60 who attended a random selection of 56 senior centers in New York City. The survey included questions related to oral health status. This study used the HIP database to examine differences in self-reported dental status, dental care utilization, and dental insurance, by race/ethnicity, among community-dwelling older adults. Non-Hispanic White respondents reported better dental health, higher dental care utilization, and higher satisfaction with dental care compared to all other racial/ethnic groups. Among minority older adults, Chinese immigrants were more likely to report poor dental health, were less likely to report dental care utilization and dental insurance, and were less satisfied with their dental care compared to all other racial/ethnic groups. Language fluency was significantly related to access to dental care among Chinese immigrants. Among a diverse community-dwelling population of older adults in New York City, we found significant differences by race/ethnicity in factors related to oral health. Greater attention is needed in enhancing the cultural competency of providers, addressing gaps in oral health literacy, and reducing language barriers that impede access to care.     

Long COVID and Health Inequities: The Role of Primary Care

Policy Points

• An estimated 700,000 people in the United States have “long COVID,” that is, symptoms of COVID‐19 persisting beyond three weeks.
• COVID‐19 and its long‐term sequelae are strongly influenced by social determinants such as poverty and by structural inequalities such as racism and discrimination.
• Primary care providers are in a unique position to provide and coordinate care for vulnerable patients with long COVID.
• Policy measures should include strengthening primary care, optimizing data quality, and addressing the multiple nested domains of inequity.

The pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated health inequities in both acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and its longer‐term sequelae. ¹ , ² , ³ , ⁴ Symptoms of COVID‐19 persist in approximately one in 10 patients. ⁵ Acute symptoms include shortness of breath, cough, myalgias, disturbances in the sense of taste and smell, fatigue, fever, chills, and, less commonly, rhinitis and gastrointestinal symptoms. By contrast, the term “long COVID,” coined by patients, refers to both postacute symptoms (lasting more than three weeks) and chronic symptoms (lasting more than 12 weeks). ⁶ Long COVID is a multisystem disease of unknown cause whose manifestations, while partially overlapping the acute presentation, vary widely among patients and are exacerbated by comorbidities and vulnerabilities (Box 1). It occurs in adults who were hospitalized and those who were not ⁶ , ⁷ , ⁸ and (more rarely) in children. ⁹ At the time of this writing, the United States had more than 17 million diagnosed cases of COVID‐19, ¹⁰ , ¹¹ which translates into approximately 1,700,000 people with long COVID. This does not include the likely underreporting of COVID‐19 cases, the proportion of which in one study ranged from one in three to one in 406. ¹² The implications for health services are substantial. Given the heterogeneity in definitions of long COVID and the lack of centralized registries of patients with the disease, those who might suffer from long‐term symptoms might mistakenly be recorded as recovered.Box 1Some of the Many Manifestations of Long COVID ⁶ , ¹³ , ¹⁴ , ¹⁵