key: cord-0987424-gl5xk99e
authors: Zhang, Yongkang; Li, Jing; Yu, Jiani; Braun, Robert Tyler; Casalino, Lawrence P.
title: Social Determinants of Health and Geographic Variation in Medicare per Beneficiary Spending
date: 2021-06-10
journal: JAMA Netw Open
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13212
sha: 52b929061fe029c79b4f341f729d1d58d512f0cf
doc_id: 987424
cord_uid: gl5xk99e

IMPORTANCE: Despite substantial geographic variation in Medicare per beneficiary spending in the US, little is known about the extent to which social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with this variation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the associations between SDoH and county-level price-adjusted Medicare per beneficiary spending. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used county-level data on 2017 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age and gender) and clinical risk score, supply of health care resources (eg, number of hospital beds), and SDoH measures (eg, median income and unemployment rate) from multiple sources. Multivariable regressions were used to estimate the association of the variation in spending across quintiles with SDoH. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 2017 county-level price-adjusted Medicare Parts A and B spending per beneficiary. SDoH measures included socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, social relationships, and residential and community context. RESULTS: Among 3038 counties with 33 495 776 Medicare FFS beneficiaries (18 352 336 [54.8%] women; mean [SD] age, 72 [1.5] years), mean Medicare price-adjusted per beneficiary spending for counties in the highest spending quintile was $3785 (95% CI, $3706-$3862) higher, or 49% higher, than spending for bottom-quintile counties (mean [SD] spending per beneficiary, $11 464 [735] vs $7679 [522]; P < .001). The total contribution (including through both direct and indirect pathways) of SDoH was 37.7% ($1428 of $3785) of this variation, compared with 59.8% ($2265 of $3785) by patient clinical risk, 14.5% ($549 of $3785) by supply of health care resources, and 19.8% ($751 of $3785) by patient demographic characteristics. When all factors were included within the same model, the direct contribution of SDoH was associated with 5.8% of the variation, compared with 4.6% by supply, 4.7% by patient demographic characteristics, and 62.0% by patient clinical risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest social determinants of health are associated with considerable proportions of geographic variation in Medicare spending. Policies addressing SDoH for disadvantaged patients in certain regions have the potential to contain health care spending and improve the value of health care; patient SDoH may need to be accounted for in publicly reported physician performance, and in value-based purchasing incentive programs for health care professionals.

We used the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) conceptual framework as the basis for selecting SDoH measures. 1 The NAM conceptual framework specifies five categories of SDoH associated with Medicare spending, including (1) socioeconomic position, (2) race and ethnicity composition, (3) social relationships, (4) overall residential and community context, and (5) gender. We identified 87 publicly available county-level SDoH measures from literature and web searches (eTable 1). SDoH measures identified in our searches, but not publicly available were excluded from this study (e.g., walking score, transit score, self-reported financial burden, and self-reported financial barriers to medication). After we identified publicly available SDoH measures, we mapped each of the 87 SDoH measures to one of the four NAM's conceptual framework categories and the subcategories therein (e.g. income, insurance etc. under socioeconomic position). We made two changes to the conceptual framework after this step. First, we did not use gender as one of the SDoH measures as we considered gender as part of demographics. Second, NAM's conceptual framework considered healthcare resources to be part of the Residential and Community Context category; however, we used healthcare resources separately to be consistent with previous literature, [2] [3] [4] [5] which emphasized the importance of the supply of healthcare resources to regional spending variation.

After mapping of SDoH measures to the NAM conceptual framework, we qualitatively screened SDoH measures that were conceptually similar under the same category or across subcategories. For example, % receiving public assistance income, % receiving supplement security income, and % receiving food stamp/snap in the "Income" subcategory all capture poverty. We therefore only included % residents in poverty (based on federal poverty threshold). We selected up to two SDoH variables for each conceptually similar measure for further consideration.

The qualitative screening generated a total of 13 SDoH measures, generally with one measure in each subcategory (except for marital status and living alone which we did not include in any measure as they conceptually overlap with social relationships), including six for socioeconomic position (median household income, % of residents in poverty, % of residents who are uninsured, unemployment rate, % of residents without a high school degree, and food environment index), three for race and ethnicity composition (% of residents who are nonwhite, % of residents who are non-citizen, and % residents with limited English proficiency), one for social relationships (number of membership associations per 1,000 population), and three for overall residential and community context (% of households with severe housing problems, % of residents with access to exercise opportunities, and % of housing units in rural areas). Finally, we tested the correlation between SDoH measures within each category (eTables 2-4). For each group of measures that captured similar concepts and were highly correlated (i.e., correlation coefficient over 0.7), 6 we selected the variable that was most commonly used in the literature. Therefore, we dropped % of residents in poverty given its high correlation with median household income (eTable 2). We also dropped % residents with limited English proficiency as it is highly correlated with % of residents who are non-citizen (eTable 3). We tested the correlation between the remaining 11 SDoH measures and included them in the analysis (eTable 5). We subsequently adopted a more detailed race/ethnicity classification and replaced the % resident who are non-White with % Hispanic, % non-Hispanic Black and % non-Hispanic with another race. Therefore, our final analyses include 13 SDoH measures. 

Notes: 1 Food environment index equally weights two indicators of the food environment:(1) Limited access to healthy foods, which estimates the percentage of the population that is low income and does not live close to a grocery store. (2) Food insecurity, which estimates the percentage of the population that did not have access to a reliable source of food. 2 Other races include American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and other races. 3 Social Associations measures the number of membership associations per 10,000 population. 4 Severe housing problems is the percentage of households with one or more of the following housing problems: (1) Housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; (2) Housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; (3) Household is overcrowded; or (4) Household is severely cost burdened. 5 Access to exercise opportunities measures the percentage of individuals in a county who live reasonably close to a location for physical activity, defined as parks or recreational facilities. Individuals are considered to have access to exercise opportunities if they reside in a census block that is within a half mile of a park, or reside in an urban census block that is within one mile of a recreational facility, or reside in a rural census block that is within three miles of a recreational facility. More information about these measures could be found at: https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explorehealth-rankings/measures-data-sources/2021-measures 

We first categorized counties into quintiles based on their price-adjusted per beneficiary Medicare spending in 2017 and calculated the differences in mean price-adjusted per beneficiary Medicare spending between each higher spending quintile (quintiles 2-5) and quintile 1. We then followed previously developed methods to examine the extent to which the variation in priceadjusted per beneficiary Medicare spending across quintiles could be explained by (1) patient demographics, (2) patient clinical risk, (3) supply of health resources, and (4) SDoH.

To assess the total contribution of each group of characteristics to geographic variation in Medicare spending, we first ran a linear regression model where the outcome variable is the price-adjusted per beneficiary spending and explanatory variables are one of the four groups of characteristics above.

In this equation, represents the price-adjusted per beneficiary Medicare spending in each county , is a vector of independent variables (e.g., demographics or clinical risk). represents the coefficients estimating the relationship between per beneficiary Medicare spending and the independent variables. represents the error term. This model is weighted by the number of fee-for-service patients in each county.

After estimating model (1) using OLS, we estimated the predicted value of the outcome � given the independent variables and estimated coefficients ̂ and calculated the residual for each county as = -� . represents the per beneficiary spending that is not explained by independent variables. We then calculated the mean per beneficiary spending across all counties as � = ∑ 3,038

. Finally, the adjusted per beneficiary spending for each county was calculated as � _ = � + ,which removes variation in explained by . The adjusted variation in per beneficiary spending was calculated as the differences in mean � _ among counties in quintiles 2-5 and mean � _ among counties in quintile 1. If the independent variables in the regression model (1) could explain the variation, we would expect a narrowed variation across quintiles. The share of the variation explained by the independent variable was calculated as one minus the ratio of variation in adjusted spending � _ to that in price-adjusted per beneficiary spending , times 100. This model and the estimation process were repeated for four times to calculate the total contribution of each group of characteristics.

We note that this approach is analogous and yields similar results to the R-squared statistic of the regression with as the dependent variable and as independent variables ( Figure 3 and Table 2 ). The current approach has the benefit of allowing us to flexibly present changes in spending in terms of dollar amounts of counties in different spending quintiles.

To estimate the direct contribution of each group of characteristics, we ran a single model using all characteristics as independent variables.

Similar with model 1, we first calculated the residual for each county as = -� after estimating model (1) using OLS. We then sequentially replaced each group of characteristics using their means across all counties and estimated the predicted per beneficiary spending � given the independent variables and estimated coefficients 1 � − 4 � . Finally, the adjusted per beneficiary spending is calculated as � = � + . Similarly, the adjusted variation in per beneficiary spending was calculated as the differences in mean � _ among counties in quintiles 2-5 and mean � _ among counties in quintile 1. The share of the variation explained by the independent variable was calculated as one minus the ratio of variation in adjusted spending � _ to that in price-adjusted per beneficiary spending , time 100. This process was repeated four times to calculate the direct contribution of each group of characteristics. 

Notes: For each quintile, the share of variation associated with each set of characteristics was estimated when controlling for other characteristics. Demographics include age, age squared, age cubed, and gender; supply characteristics include the following measures per 1,000 population: primary care physicians, specialists, hospital beds, skilled nursing facility beds, home health agency aides, registered nurses employed by hospices, and ambulatory care centers. SDoH include median household income, % who are uninsured, unemployment rate, % without high school degree, food environment index; % who are Hispanic, % of non-Hispanic black, and % of non-Hispanic with another race (i.e., American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and other races), % who are noncitizen, social associations per 1,000 population, % with severe housing problems, % with access to exercise opportunities, and % of housing units in rural areas.

Notes: For each quintile, the share of variation associated with each set of characteristics was estimated when controlling for other characteristics. Supply characteristics include the following measures per 1,000 population: primary care physicians, specialists, hospital beds, skilled nursing facility beds, home health agency aides, registered nurses employed by hospices, and ambulatory care centers. SDoH include median household income, % who are uninsured, unemployment rate, % without high school degree, food environment index; % who are Hispanic, % of non-Hispanic black, and % of non-Hispanic with another race (i.e., American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and other races), % who are non-citizen, social associations per 1,000 population, % with severe housing problems, % with access to exercise opportunities, and % of housing units in rural areas. 

Notes: For each quintile, the share of variation associated with each set of characteristics was estimated when controlling for other characteristics. Demographics include age, age squared, age cubed, and gender. Supply characteristics include the following measures per 1,000 population: primary care physicians, specialists, hospital beds, skilled nursing facility beds, home health agency aides, registered nurses employed by hospices, and ambulatory care centers. SDoH include median household income, % who are uninsured, unemployment rate, % without high school degree, food environment index; % who are Hispanic, % of non-Hispanic black, and % of non-Hispanic with another race (i.e., American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and other races), % who are noncitizen, social associations per 1,000 population, % with severe housing problems, % with access to exercise opportunities, and % of housing units in rural areas.

Accounting for social risk factors in Medicare payment

Variation in health care spending: target decision making, not geography

Patients' preferences explain a small but significant share of regional variation in medicare spending

Sources of Geographic Variation in Health Care: Evidence from Patient Migration

Following the money: factors associated with the cost of treating high-cost Medicare beneficiaries

Increase in federal match associated with significant gains in coverage for children through Medicaid and CHIP. Health Aff (Millwood)