Social Determinants of Health Archives - Heartland Health Research Institute

‘Health’ Care vs. ‘Medical’ Care
It’s About Improving Population Health

Posted on: 06.15.21 By: David P. Lind

Controlling health costs and improving population health – we cannot have one without the other.

Healthcare costs continue to outpace general inflation. PricewaterhouseCoopers recently projected a 6.5 percent medical cost trend in 2022. By comparison, the annual inflation rate for the United States was 5.0% for the 12 months ending May 2021 – the largest increase since 2008. For those of us who have health insurance coverage through our employment or have purchased coverage through a market-based exchange, we live in constant anxiety about paying more for our insurance.

Aside from having a high-cost, inefficient healthcare ‘system,’ the major source of this problem is our unhealthy population. “Upstream” environmental factors greatly impact our “downstream” health – for all of us. Upstream factors are many – primarily poor nutrition, inadequate housing and education, and low incomes – all considered to be social determinants of our health (SDOH). For discussion sake, healthy behaviors, social & economic factors and physical environment are all considered to be somewhat manageable by taking proactive (or preventable) measures – and these are lumped together as Upstream factors.

A great video about addressing SDOH from Broadlawns Medical Center can be found here.

UPSTREAM: 80 Percent is ‘Health’ Related

According to the County Health Rankings Model, as much as 80 percent of the factors that influence our health and well-being – physical environment, social and economic factors, and health behaviors – operate outside the services for which we pay hospitals and clinics. These factors are considered to be upstream, and to a large extent, can be modified and proactively managed. Conversely, only about 20 percent of our actual health outcomes is impacted by the clinical care that we pay to our healthcare providers (see diagram below).

Again, proactively staying healthy comes from determinants such as the social and economic environment, the physical environment, and each person’s individual characteristics and behaviors. This is what should be labeled, “health care.” Our health is primarily determined by our behaviors and the environment in which we live. How we live ‘upstream’ will greatly impact how polluted the ‘downstream’ will become.

DOWNSTREAM: 20 Percent is ‘Medical’ Related

In 2018, the U.S. spent nearly twice as much on medical care per person as did comparable countries ($10,637 compared to $5,527 per person, on average). These expenditures relate to the care we receive from our doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. The healthcare prices we pay in the U.S. are higher because of administrative waste and because prices are naturally higher for hospitalization, physician services, and, of course, the medications we purchase. Numerous sources report this, but a good primer comes from the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker.

The amount we spend for the “medical care” we receive downstream is different from the aforementioned “health care” found upstream. The high expenditures for medical care paid in Iowa and the U.S. is really for “sick care.” Medical care, for the most part, represents the consequences of our poor efforts upstream. If we fail to make the appropriate investments upstream to promote healthy living environments and behaviors, we eventually pay a proportionately larger price downstream. We all know how that is going for us, right?

In 2016, I co-authored a blog with Dr. Yogesh Shah, Chief Medical Officer and Vice President of Medical Affairs at Broadlawns Medical Center. The blog, “Time to Move Upstream and ‘Invest’ in our Health,” shows just how little the U.S. invests in the social determinants of health issues upstream when compared to other wealthy countries.

The Commonwealth Fund released an issue brief in early 2020 that confirms this troubling trend persists. “The U.S. spends more on medical care as a share of the economy — nearly twice as much as the average Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country — yet has the lowest life expectancy, the highest suicide rates and the highest chronic disease burden and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average among the 11 nations.”

The U.S. under-invests in spending for modifiable contributors to healthy outcomes compared to other advanced countries. By under-investing in the ‘social determinants of health,’ we are relegated to pay bizarre prices for a sicker population that uses more medical care. Over decades, we unrealistically rely more heavily on our health providers to ‘fix’ our upstream shortcomings. In the U.S., reimbursement practices reward intervention – or sick care – far more than prevention. This is not an indictment on our health providers, but on our convoluted healthcare ‘system.’

In short, we grossly overspend on the downstream consequences to mask our poor investment efforts upstream.

Summary

We must look upstream to find effective ways to address the social determinants described earlier. There are pockets of health systems and states that are making attempts to alter the environments in which we live, work and play. We live in a world of trade-offs. Trading wasted care (and its associated cost) with preventive health-related strategies seems to make a lot of sense.

As our blog concluded five years ago: “Spending for the ‘right’ community measures that impact health will provide better health outcomes for Iowa and our country. Such expenditures will take time to translate into positive health outcomes but we need to start investing now. It will take cost-shifting from inefficient healthcare spending to re-allocating funds for social determinants that matter most, such as nutrition, adequate housing and education. By doing so, we will make our communities and state both healthier and more productive.”

To stay abreast of healthcare-related issues, we invite you to subscribe to this blog.

Lobbying for Social Determinants of Health?

Posted on: 11.23.20 By: David P. Lind

In healthcare, there is a HUGE amount of money flowing in many directions. The law of gravity determines the flow, originating with the lobbying that is directed to those we elect to state and federal offices. In healthcare, somewhat similar to the trickle-down theory of economics, lobbying efforts grease the skids for how money eventually changes hands.

Effective lobbying, therefore, can establish who gets paid and by how much.

Open Secrets – Center for Responsive Politics

Lobbying Congress and federal agencies to influence decisions made by the government comes at a price – but it can be worth the ‘investment.’ According to OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit organization that tracks money in U.S. politics, the top 13 sectors in 2020 shows that ‘Health’ is the top lobbying sector, spending over $464 million so far this year. Since 1998, this sector has dished out over $9.5 billion, edging out ‘Misc. Business’ ($9.4 billion) and Finance/Insurance/Real Estate ($9.36 billion). ‘Health’ lobbyists represented include the American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, pharmaceuticals, and so on.

In the $3+ trillion healthcare industry, lobbying efforts can pay off handsomely. The ‘investments’ mentioned above are merely a drop in the bucket for the eventual returns that will come sometime later. Please understand, I am not suggesting that lobbying ‘investments’ are illegal, they usually are not.

Social Determinants of Health (SDOH)

According to the National Academy of Medicine, clinical care accounts for only 10-20 percent of healthy outcomes, while our behaviors, physical environment, and social and economic factors determine the other 80-90 percent – widely known as ‘social determinants of health’ (SDOH). Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition, social determinants of health are “conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of-life-risks and outcomes.” In short, SDOH are all external factors that affect our health outside of the hospital or doctor’s office.

To reign in ever-increasing healthcare costs and enhance better population health, why not explore new solutions ‘upstream’ to invest in our collective health and well-being? It’s about using our limited resources more wisely on key determinants of overall health that can ultimately improve health and control healthcare costs.

When comparing the U.S. to other wealthy industrialized countries, medical spending in the U.S. accounts for a greater share of gross domestic product than social services spending. Other countries spend more of their GDP upstream attempting to address the SDOH issues that directly and indirectly impact the health of their population.

Unfortunately, such investments are often viewed as ‘socialism’ or something worse in the U.S. As Dr. Donald M. Berwick published in JAMA this past summer, The Moral Determinants of Health, “…SDOH is motivated by an embrace of the moral determinants of health, including, most crucially, a strong sense of social solidarity in the U.S.” This solidarity, by the way, includes the removal of institutional racism. Until this happens, we may not have the necessary push to pursue SDOH.

Value-Based Care

Value-based care (VBC) has become a large focus for Medicare and private payers. VBC is a payment approach by which purchasers of healthcare hold the healthcare delivery system (physicians and other providers, hospitals, etc.) accountable for both the quality and cost of care. In fact, VBC programs are all about improving population health management strategies and center on how well healthcare providers can improve quality of care based on specific measures, including the reduction of hospital readmissions, using certified health information technology, and improving preventative care. VBC is the new-age approach to replacing the now-ancient fee-for-service payment arrangement in the U.S.

Healthcare providers are justifiably uneasy because they are being required to somehow ‘fix’ the social infrastructure by improving population health management. This is made more difficult when our own legislators and political system have problems agreeing whether the sky is blue or not on any given day. As mentioned earlier, a healthier population comes from non-clinical environmental determinants that influence how people live their lives. As a result of the ACA, all not-for-profit hospitals, since 2014, have been required to conduct a community health needs assessment every three years and implement a strategy to meet those needs.

What if…

What if healthcare lobbyists leveraged their efforts to meaningfully impact SDOH? Why couldn’t healthcare lobbyists on the Hill take half of their lobbying energy and financial resources and repurpose it into a lobbying campaign to address SDOH problems, such as availability of healthy food, improved education, access to housing, transportation, safe neighborhoods, etc.? If improving community health is the direction in which VBC is moving, and health providers are being financially incented to move this needle to improve population health, perhaps healthcare lobbyists SHOULD push legislators in this new direction to help move an otherwise unmovable mountain. Set a deadline to initiate SDOH programs – perhaps in the next five or seven years. Would it be possible for legislative gridlock to succumb to bipartisan support if powerful lobbyists sang from the same sheet of music?

One example of a similar approach, as reported by Modern Healthcare, comes from Louisiana-based Ochsner Health, which is pledging $100 million over the next five years to help eliminate healthcare disparities. Obviously, there is a huge need for the healthcare community to improve SDOH challenges in the communities they serve.

The potential ‘return’ for this new approach could be massive, for both the healthcare establishment and for all Americans. If healthcare providers serve as ‘repair shops’ to mend those needing care, and are ‘graded’ and subsequently paid on how well the health of the community has improved, local and national policies must be in place to make this happen.

This may sound too straightforward and, perhaps somewhat naive. But thinking ‘differently’ may prove to be worthwhile for what ails our healthcare system. Maybe Dr. Berwick’s morally guided campaign for better health is a great start.

To stay abreast of healthcare-related issues, we invite you to subscribe to this blog.

National Trend – Insurance Companies Investing in Affordable Housing Projects

Posted on: 04.02.19 By: David P. Lind

In 2016, Dr. Yogi Shah and I co-wrote a blog about moving ‘upstream’ to make investments in population health, more specifically, the social determinants that impact our health. As indicated in our work, when compared to other industrialized countries, the U.S. spends disproportionately large amounts on medical services, while largely ignoring the living environment that greatly affects the health of our population. We spend considerably more for medical care, yet our outcomes compare unfavorably to those countries.

In the U.S., we have done a great job of ‘medicalizing’ our social problems. But instead of focusing on how to pay for medical care, we would be wise to re-direct our limited resources toward improving basic social determinants of health, such as education, housing, nutrition and poverty.

UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest health insurer, and a division of UnitedHealth Group, announced this past week that their program of investing in affordable housing projects has now surpassed $400 million. Since 2011, UnitedHealthcare has invested in 80 affordable-housing communities across 18 states with more than 4,500 new homes for individuals and families in need.

It should be noted that the shortage of affordable housing greatly impacts population health. It limits choices about where people live, often pushing lower-income families to substandard housing in unsafe, overcrowded neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty and fewer resources for healthy outdoor and exercise activities. Further, unaffordable housing can prevent people from meeting other basic needs including nutrition and healthcare.

Not to be outdone, other insurers are also making affordable housing investments. The nation’s second largest insurer, Indiana-based Anthem, has committed about $380 million developing affordable housing over the past decade. Kaiser Permanente, a California-based healthcare provider that also sells health insurance, has invested $200 million to address housing stability, homelessness and other community issues. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, HealthPartners and UCare, all in Minnesota, are also supporting smaller projects to do the same. I’m sure there are other insurers making similar investments elsewhere.

As we all know, healthcare payers are having difficulty controlling escalating healthcare costs. One mindset change is to look ‘upstream’ and find local priorities that are linked to poor health outcomes needing attention. According to one study brief, social determinants account for about 80 percent of health outcomes, meaning that the majority of our healthcare costs can be attributed to non-clinical factors.

Research continues to confirm that unmet social needs are associated with higher rates of hospital admissions, readmissions, and emergency room use. One prime example is that supportive housing has been shown to decrease Medicaid costs by up to 67 percent, which includes reduced emergency room visits and inpatient admissions. Such outcomes can positively impact the private-payer ledger by saving monies paid to medical providers who care for the low-income population.

Investing ‘upstream’ is a smart alternative to the avoidable problems that become more expensive ‘downstream.’ It is good to see that more insurers are also taking this approach.

To stay abreast of healthcare-related issues, we invite you to subscribe to this blog.

Time to Move Upstream and ‘Invest’ in our Health

Posted on: 11.21.16 By: David P. Lind

Authors: David P. Lind and Yogesh Shah, MD, MPH

Employer-sponsored health premiums in Iowa have increased 215 percent since 1999. This growth, however, appears tame when compared to health insurance plans sold in the individual market. We’ve grown so accustomed to rising health costs that it has become the ‘new normal’ with no apparent silver bullet in sight to remedy the core problems. Healthcare costs continue to outpace general inflation, typically by two-to-three fold. We live with constant anxiety about paying more for our healthcare – whether through taxes, premiums, deductibles and/or other out-of-pocket expenditures.

With the advent of a new Trump administration geared to repeal many Obamacare components, all sorts of health insurance “solutions” will be debated. Ideas to make coverage more competitive include selling policies across state lines, pushing for health savings accounts, and relying on other tax incentives to perform magic. However well-intentioned, belief that the insurance component will somehow fix our cost problem is wishful thinking.

The major source of this problem is our unhealthy population. “Upstream” environmental factors greatly impact our “downstream” health. for all of us. Upstream factors are many – primarily poor nutrition, inadequate housing and education, and low incomes – all considered to be social determinants of our health.

To meaningfully address healthcare costs in Iowa and nationally, we must be willing to consider new approaches and develop a mindset that transcends party politics. This may sound counterintuitive, but to reign in ever-increasing healthcare costs and enhance better population health, we should explore new solutions ‘upstream’ to invest in our collective health and well-being. This is not about implementing ‘socialized medicine.’ It’s about using our limited resources more wisely on key determinants of overall health that can ultimately improve health and control healthcare costs.

Healthcare Spending

In 2014, we spent 17.5 percent of our economy on healthcare, reaching $3 trillion annually. By comparison, in 1960, we spent only five percent on healthcare. One disturbing estimate by the Institute of Medicine shows about one-third of our healthcare spending – or $1 trillion – is widely considered wasted spending, money that can be better invested elsewhere.

Should healthcare costs dominate such a large segment of our economy? If so, shouldn’t we be healthier than other nations based on what we spend? On a per capita basis, the U.S. performs poorly on many key health indicators. For example, our country has lower birth weight, higher maternal and infant mortality, as well as higher incidents of injuries, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, disability rates, mental illness and, surprisingly, shorter life expectancy. In addition, we have more drug-related deaths than other industrialized countries.

With these in mind, one would think that most comparable countries must be outspending the U.S. on healthcare services. The facts are quite the opposite. In 2009, our country spent 16.3 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare, about six percentage points higher than the average 10.3 percent spent by 10 other industrialized countries. Yet, our growing appetite for more healthcare spending results in poorer health outcomes. This is both puzzling and frustrating – for policymakers, taxpayers, employers and their employees.

Social Services (Community Health) Spending

Instead of focusing on how to pay for healthcare – a perpetually-growing segment of our economy – we should re-direct our limited resources to impact basic social determinants of health, such as targeting education, housing, nutrition and poverty. Unlike healthcare, U.S. public spending on social services falls far below other developed nations. In 2009, the U.S. spent 9.1 percent of its GDP for aggregate social services versus the average of 15.8 percent spent by all 10 other wealthy countries.

When combined, U.S. healthcare and social services spending ranks in the middle of the pack of peer countries, with a disproportionately higher amount spent on healthcare than on social services.

The U.S. is the only wealthy country where healthcare spending accounts for a greater share of GDP than social services spending – an “imbalance” our country has embraced. Over decades, we’ve allowed soaring healthcare costs to smother the necessary investments we must make to improve our community health. In other words, our country inefficiently relies on medical care and insurance to address problems that we fail to address upstream, at their source. An insightful reference on this subject comes from a book written by Elizabeth H. Bradley and Lauren A. Taylor – The American Health Care Paradox…Why Spending More is Getting Us Less.

What can we learn from this?

High healthcare spending in the U.S. has far-reaching economic consequences, such as wage stagnation, personal bankruptcy and budget deficits. Extensive evidence suggests that making the right investments in social well-being substantially improves population health outcomes downstream. For example, housing vouchers, home energy assistance and the availability of supermarkets in low-income areas are known to reduce obesity, diabetes and nutritional risk in children. In addition, availability of prenatal and infant nutritional assistance is associated with reduced infant mortality.

Realistically, the American culture has had little appetite for becoming more ‘socialized’ in tackling upstream problems, relying instead on the national ideology that spending more on healthcare will solve our health woes and improve health outcomes. But for meaningful change to occur, balancing healthcare with social determinant strategies must emerge both nationally and locally here in Iowa. The Iowa Healthiest State Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, is just one example of attempting to improve the physical, social and emotional well-being of our Iowa communities. This initiative is a good start, but other bold private and public initiatives need to be undertaken for real positive change to occur in healthcare outcomes.

Investing in our health upstream makes a great deal of sense. Spending for the ‘right’ community measures that impact health will provide better health outcomes for Iowa and our country. Such expenditures will take time to translate into positive health outcomes but we need to start investing now. The result may be cost-shifting from inefficient healthcare spending to re-allocating funds for social determinants that matter most, such as nutrition, adequate housing and education. By doing so, we will make our communities and state both healthier and more productive.

Controlling health costs and improving population health – we cannot have one without the other.