BY: RICHARD ROTH and EILEEN BARSI
Mr. Roth is director, strategy and business development, and Ms. Barsi is
director, community benefit, Catholic Healthcare West, San Francisco.
A New Tool Pinpoints Health Care Disparities in Communities throughout the
Nation
SUMMARY Catholic Healthcare West, San Francisco (CHW), has developed a national Community
Need Index (CNI) in partnership with Solucient, an information products company,
to help health care organizations, not-for-profits, and policymakers identify
and address barriers to health care access in their communities. The CNI aggregates five socioeconomic indicators long known to contribute to
health disparity—income, culture/language, education, housing status, and
insurance coverage—and applies them to every zip code in the United States.
Each zip code is then given a score ranging from 1.0 (low need) to 5.0 (high
need). Residents of communities with the highest CNI scores were shown to be
twice as likely to experience preventable hospitalization for manageable conditions—such
as ear infections, pneumonia or congestive heart failure—as communities
with the lowest CNI scores. The CNI provides compelling evidence for addressing socioeconomic barriers
when considering health policy and local health planning. The tool highlights
health care disparities between geographic regions and illustrates the acute
needs of several notable geographies, including inner city and rural areas.
Further, it should enable health care providers, policymakers, and others to
allocate resources where they are most needed, using a standardized, quantitative
tool. The CNI provides CHW with an important means to strategically allocate
resources where it will be most effective in maintaining a healthy community. |
Accurate measurement of community health need is the first step in addressing
the barriers to health care access that many people face. As one of the largest
safety-net providers in the nation, Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) has a responsibility
to improve the quality of life in the communities we serve, and that requires
understanding the barriers to health care access those communities are facing.
CHW has long measured community need through needs assessments of the communities
we serve at our 40 hospitals in California, Arizona, and Nevada. These appraisals
measure such factors as the type of health problems community members experience,
which members are in the most serious need, and whether adequate resources are
available to address demands at the local level.
Although routine assessments continue to be an important means of identifying
specific health care concerns in specific communities, they tend to utilize
a diverse collection of qualitative and quantitative indicators with varying,
often subjective, interpretations of the indicators. Because they are not standardized,
the findings in such studies do not permit effective comparison with those of
other studies. As a result, they do not lend themselves to the measurement of
community need from a regional, state, or even national perspective.
An interdisciplinary team at CHW theorized that a standardized community need
assessment tool that demonstrated the link between community need and access
to care could be used systemwide to help improve patient care. Such a tool,
which would apply the same analytical rigor used in studying medical treatments
or hospital operations, would elevate community benefit assessment to the level
of a science. Our team developed the tool—which we named the Community
Need Index (CNI)—in 2004. Since then, we have provided the tool to all
of our hospitals and community partners.
Social and Economic Health Indicators
Rather than relying solely on public health data, our team decided that
the CNI would need to account for the underlying economic, structural, and personal
barriers that affect overall health. Personal barriers alone represent a broad
range of factors, including literacy, general education, differences in beliefs
about health, and the presence or absence of a strong, stable home environment.1
Poverty, life expectancy, and health insurance status are also factors to be
considered in making projections about health and chronic illness. 2
Working with literature and experiential evidence, our team identified five
barrier issues that enable quantification of access to health care: income,
culture, education, insurance, and housing.
Income Decades of research have established a strong relationship between
socioeconomic status and health. Simply put, people without much money have
a reduced ability to pay for health services. Beyond that, people who live in
impoverished neighborhoods and encounter social and economic barriers to accessing
health care are likely to suffer a disadvantage with respect to disease prevention,
management of illnesses, and long-term survival. Factors include not only inability
to purchase health care services but also a shortage of providers, poor health
literacy, and lack of access to healthy lifestyle activities. 3 Low-income
wage earners are also less likely to be covered by an employer's health insurance
program or to be able to pay their share of health care services even if they
are covered. 4
Culture/Language Cultural or ethnic barriers can contribute to a number
of health disparities, ranging from increased prevalence of disease to reduced
access to government health programs. 5 Cultural differences may
adversely impact health because of language issues and variations in approach
or delivery, all of which can preclude some people from taking full advantage
of the systems and services available. Recent immigrants often are unfamiliar
with health services in their new neighborhoods, and, as a result, programs
intended for them sometimes go underused. 6 An inability to understand
material written in English also is associated with increased health risk. 7
Education Forty million people in the United States are unable to read
health information documents, and another 50 million do so only with difficulty.
8 Lack of education has been cited as a major indicator of poor health
in many studies. 9 Hospitalization rates among the illiterate may
be twice as high as among those who have literacy skills. 10
Educational quality also has an impact on health: Students who attend low-performing
schools are less likely than others to receive adequate health education and
to be able to comprehend medical information; on the other hand, they are more
likely to engage in high-risk behavior. Such behavior includes unhealthy eating,
unprotected sex, inability to recognize early disease symptoms, and noncompliance
with medication for chronic health problems. 11
Educational barriers, moreover, often turn into impediments to employment,
thus further increasing the likelihood of poverty and lack of insurance. 12
(Data concerning education must be treated with care. While measuring the percentage
of people in an area with a high school diploma is a straightforward method,
it does not accurately reflect whether individuals are literate. In many instances,
even those with high school diplomas may be functionally illiterate with regard
to health and medical information.) 13
Insurance According to the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured, lack
of health insurance forces people to forgo primary care treatment options, leading
to a markedly increased likelihood of hospitalization for chronic conditions.
14 Such conditions include hypertension, asthma, and diabetes, which
are generally manageable. Uninsured people are also significantly less likely
to have cancer diagnosed at an early stage.
Late diagnosis leads to higher death rates from otherwise treatable conditions
and to increased acute care hospitalization for serious complications of chronic
diseases that are normally manageable.15 As the ranks of uninsured
people (including those who are employed but choose to forgo insurance) continue
to grow, this indicator of community need is likely to increase in importance.
Today an estimated 45 million people in the United States lack health insurance.16
Housing Increased rental housing (as opposed to housing owned by the
resident) is associated with more transitory lifestyles, a less stable home,
and an environment that inhibits disease prevention. 17 For example,
rental housing is more likely than owned housing to be substandard and to be
located in neighborhoods with higher crime rates, lower quality schools, limited
healthy food choices, and fewer recreational opportunities.18 This
measure does not reflect whether such neighborhoods also have a significant
homeless population, a factor that could influence demands on local health systems
and, because a lack of stable shelter tends to facilitate illness, increase
the overall health risk.
Calculating the CNI
Following our team's identification of the major barriers to effective health
care, CHW partnered with Solucient, an Evanston, IL-based consulting firm, to
develop the data sets and statistical models that would be used to create and
test the proposed index. Measurements were computed using current demographic
estimates for U.S. counties (provided by Claritas, a San Diego firm) and insurance
coverage estimates (provided by Solucient). The measurements were based on the
answers to nine questions concerning the five barriers (see Box,
p. 33).
In formulating the CNI, we assigned each zip code in the nation a score of
1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for each of the nine barrier measures. A score of 1 represented
the lowest rank nationally for the statistics listed, and a score of 5 indicated
the highest rank. For example, a zip code scoring a 1 for the educational barrier
would contain a highly educated population; a zip code with a 5 would have a
very small percentage of even high school graduates.
For the two barriers with only one statistic each (education and housing),
the single statistic listed was used to calculate the barrier score. For the
three barriers with more than one component statistic (income, cultural, and
employment), the variation and contribution of each statistic for its barrier
was analyzed and the mean value employed.
Once each zip code was assigned a score from 1 to 5 for each of the five barriers,
the mean score was again calculated to yield the CNI score. Each of the five
barrier scores received equal weight (20 percent each) in the CNI score. A score
of 1.0 indicates a zip code with the lowest socioeconomic barriers, while a
score of 5.0 represents a zip code with the most socioeconomic barriers.
Evaluating the CNI's Integrity
To test the validity of the CNI as a measure of barriers to health care
access and subsequent poor health, we looked specifically at hospital use. Our
hypothesis was that, as an accurate measure of access to care, the CNI should
demonstrate that people living in communities of higher need would have more
inpatient admissions (both in total and for admissions that, in an ideal setting,
would be treated on an outpatient basis). The CNI was used to analyze admission
rates per 1,000 populations, where available. Scores were compared in three
categories:
- Total acute care admissions
- Ambulatory sensitive conditions
- Marker conditions
"Ambulatory sensitive conditions" include conditions that, if treated
properly in an outpatient setting, do not generally require an acute care admission.19
These conditions include otitis media, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder,
pneumonia, congestive heart failure, and cellulitis. That these conditions are
manageable on an outpatient basis has been well documented in a number of studies.20
In contrast, "marker conditions"—such as appendicitis and acute
myocardial infarction—are more serious and usually require treatment on
an inpatient basis, regardless of the patient's socioeconomic status.21
In theory, hospitalization for marker conditions is independent of socioeconomic
status and, therefore, provides a useful statistical control.
We discovered a strong correlation between high CNI scores and hospital admission
rates. For communities in the 23 states that publicly report discharge data,
total admissions per 1,000 population showed hospitalization rates for the most
needy communities (CNI=5.0) that were 60 percent higher than those for communities
with the lowest need (CNI=1.0).
When admission rates for ambulatory sensitive conditions that could have been
treated in an outpatient setting were compared to CNI scores, the correlation
was even stronger, with the most highly needy communities experiencing admission
rates that were almost twice as high (97 percent) as those for the lowest-need
communities.
We found no relationship between CNI scores and marker admission rates. That
absence proves a causal relationship between CNI scores and preventable hospitalization
for manageable conditions.
Using the CNI
CHW used the CNI scores to map the communities our hospitals serve. We provided
the base data and zip code-level CNI maps to our hospitals for use in their
community benefit analysis and planning. While it is too early to tell whether
our efforts have had an impact on community health, the CNI did identify areas
of need. CHW hospitals have formed new partnerships and strengthened existing
ones with others in their areas to address identified local health disparities.
For example, the CNI map below, shows the CNI scores for zip codes in San
Joaquin, Merced, and Stanislaus counties in California. In reviewing the CNI
data for these areas, the director of community health at St. Joseph's Medical
Center in Stockton, a CHW facility, was surprised by the results for a zip code—95207—
that was thought to be an upper-middle class area. The CNI score for 95207 was
4.2, which is in the highest-need quintile. This discovery prompted St. Joseph's
staff, in collaboration with other community organizations, to do a more in-depth
analysis of what was going on in 95207. The CNI data showed that 48 percent
of children in that zip code are living in single-parent homes and are in poverty.
Further study found that 52 percent of the children qualify for the federal
free lunch program at school. In response, St. Joseph's has revised the routes
for its mobile clinic (called the CareVan) so that it now makes regular stops
at the area's elementary schools, providing free health screenings and immunizations.
In
Sacramento, the CNI confirmed a need for a community health clinic in the city's
North Highlands area. From 17 to 30 percent of that community's residents lack
health insurance; 24 to 43 percent of its households are headed by single parents
living in poverty. To meet the health need in that area, CHW's Mercy San Juan
Medical Center is investing an estimated $300,000 a year to operate a community
clinic at a local school.
We will update the CNI data regularly and track whether our efforts are having
an effect on community health and preventable hospitalization for manageable
conditions. A review of data from California's Office of Statewide Health
and Planning Department, for example, shows that in San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Merced counties—an area in which CHW operates two hospitals—there
were more than 15,500 admissions for ambulatory sensitive problems. This figure
represents 12.5 percent of all admissions in those counties. Over time,
we will see whether our prevention efforts in high-need communities lead to
fewer preventable hospitalizations for manageable conditions.
CHW and Solucient have agreed to share the methodology with other health systems
and community benefit organizations in an effort to improve community needs
analysis nationally. A number of other hospitals and health systems have, for
a nominal fee, purchased the CNI data (see Box).
Efforts by some of these organizations further validate the CNI's usefulness
as a tool that can help them be more strategic in the allocation of their community
benefit dollars. For example, CHRISTUS Schumpert Health System, Shreveport,
LA, is using CNI data to determine where to provide community benefit grants
and investments. Provena Health, Joliet, IL, has built a robust database that
includes CNI data, relevant hospital discharge data, and a comparison of the
percentile ranking for each zip code to the national average. Finally, Froedtert
Memorial Hospital, Milwaukee, is aiding in best-practice migration that targets
asthma-treatment efforts adopted by urban physicians and hospitals.
As we had intended, the CNI is helping to build coalitions among hospitals,
health departments, clinics, health associations, and neighborhood centers that
are working to help people avoid hospitalization for a manageable condition.
A New Public Health Tool
The ability to pinpoint neighborhoods with significant barriers to health
care access may be an important new tool for public health advocates and care
providers. Because it considers multiple factors that limit health care access,
the CNI may be more accurate and useful than existing needs assessment methods
in identifying neighborhoods with disproportionate unmet health needs.
The CNI can also serve as an educational tool for elected officials in developing
programs, forming partnerships, and drafting policies that address serious barriers
to access in local communities. And it can help health care organizations and
public health officials as they plan hospitals and other health care facilities
and services in specific locations.
Because members of high-need communities are more likely than others to seek
preventive medicine in the most expensive setting—the emergency room—we
hope that, with continued strategic use of the CNI to address the causes of
health disparity, the cost of health care itself may be reduced.
This study also speaks to the need for enhanced partnerships with health organizations
and community groups to effect real change in the way health care is viewed
nationally. The goal is to help health care organizations, not-for-profit groups,
and policymakers identify and address barriers to health care in their communities.
Use of the CNI as a national model to assess community needs will elevate the
discipline of community benefit into a science.
NOTES
- P. D. Sorlie, et al., "U.S. Mortality by Economic, Demographic, and
Social Characteristics: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study,"
American Journal of Public Health, vol. 85, no. 7, 1995, pp. 949-956.
- Centers for Disease Control, Indicators for Chronic Disease Surveillance,
Atlanta, GA, 2004.
- B. P. Kennedy, et al., "Income Distribution, Socioeconomic Status,
and Self Rated Health in the United States: Multilevel Analysis," British
Medical Journal, October 3, 1998, pp. 917-921.
- C. DeNavas-Walt, B. D. Proctor, and R. J. Mills, "Income, Poverty,
and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003," Current
Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2004, p. 17.
- D. Reynolds, "Improving Care and Interactions with Racially and Ethnically
Diverse Populations in Healthcare Organizations," Journal of Healthcare
Management, vol. 49, no. 4, 2004, pp. 237-249.
- S. Yeo, "Language Barriers and Access to Care," Annual Review
of Nursing Research, vol. 22, 2004, pp. 59-73.
- M. V. Williams, et al., "Inadequate Functional Health Literacy among
Patients at Two Public Hospitals," JAMA, vol. 274, no. 21, pp.
1,677-1,682.
- Institute of Medicine, Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion,
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004, p. 1.
- J. Fisher Wilson, "The Crucial Link between Literacy and Health,"
Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 139, no. 10, p. 875.
- D. W. Baker, et al., "Health Literacy and the Risk of Hospital Admission,"
Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 13, no. 12, 1998, pp. 791-798.
- N. E. Adler, et al., "Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health: No Easy
Solution," JAMA, vol. 269, no. 24, 1993, pp. 3,140-3,145.
- V. M. Freid, et al., Health, United States, 2003: Chartbook on Trends
in the Health of Americans, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville,
MD, 2003, pp. 1-47.
- J. A. Gazmararian, et al., "Health Literacy among Medicare Enrollees
in a Managed Care Organization," JAMA, vol. 281, no. 6, 1999,
pp. 545-551.
- J. Holahan and G. Arunabh, "The Economic Downturn and Changes in Health
Insurance Coverage, 2000-2003," Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured, Washington, DC, September 2004.
- J. S. Weissman, C. Gatsonis, and A. M. Epstein, "Rates of Avoidable
Hospitalization by Insurance Status in Massachusetts and Maryland," JAMA,
vol. 268, no. 1, 1992, pp. 2,388-2,394.
- Kennedy.
- V. Diez Roux, et al., "Neighborhood of Residence and Incidence of Coronary
Heart Disease," New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 345, no.
2, 2001, pp. 99-106.
- Diez Roux.
- J. Billings, et al., "Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Hospital Use
in New York City," Health Affairs, vol. 12, no. 2, 1993, pp. 162-173.
- Weissman, Gatsonis, and Epstein, pp. 2,388-2,394.
- Billings.
Barriers to Health Care
The CNI was formulated using answers to the following nine questions:
Income Barriers
- What percentage of the population is elderly and in poverty?
- What percentage of the population is composed of children in poverty?
- What percentage of the population is composed of single-parent households
in poverty?
Cultural/Language Barriers
- What percentage of the population is of minority status?
- What percentage of the population is monolingual (not including English)
or has limited English-speaking proficiency?
Educational Barriers
- What percentage of the population lacks a high school diploma?
Insurance Barriers
- What percentage of the population lacks health insurance?
- What percentage of the population is unemployed?
Housing Barriers
- What percentage of the population rents its shelter (house or apartment)?
Organizations Using the CNI
Other health care systems hospitals now using the CNI are:
- CHRISTUS Schumpert Health System, Shreveport, LA
- Erlanger Health System, Chattanooga, TN
- Froedtert Memorial Hospital, Milwaukee
- Lodi Memorial Hospital, Lodi, CA
- Memorial Hospital of Gulfport, Gulfport, MS
- North Mississippi Health Services, Tupelo, MS
- Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas
- Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Albany, GA
- Provena Health, Joliet, IL
- San Juan Regional Medical Center, Farmington, NM
- St. Mary's Hospital, Evansville, IN
- St. Vincent Hospital, Billings, MT
- The Methodist Hospitals, Gary, IN