Tag: SDoH

Colby Takeda, Pear Suite

Dec 11, 2024

Colby Takeda is CEO of Pear Suite which has developed a system that helps organizations employing community health workers to track and pay for their work. These community health workers are in multiple social and health organizations. Increasingly states Medicaid and health plans are paying directly to community organizations and Pear Suite is building the capacity for those organizations to contract and bill the plans and states. The community health workers are now out helping engage patients, particularly around preventative services, housing, food access and much more. This includes those people in the health system and is saving health care organizations money, and is improving HEDIA and Star scores. Pear Suite has been doing this since 2023 and has over 100 clients already, and has even built its own network of community health workers. A niche, but a very impactful one-Matthew Holt

Vote, for Health Sake

Jul 23, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

If you had on your political bingo card that our former President Trump would survive an assassination attempt, or that President Biden would drop out of the race a few weeks before being renominated for 2024, then you’re playing a more advanced game than I was (on the other hand, the chances that Trump would get convicted of felonies or that Biden would have a bad debate almost seemed inevitable). If we thought 2020 was the most consequential election of our lifetimes, then fasten your seat belt, because 2024 is already proving to be a bumpier ride, with more shocks undoubtedly to come.

I don’t normally write about politics, but a recent report from the Commonwealth Fund serves as a reminder: it does matter who you vote for. It is literally a matter of life and death.

The report is the 2024 State Scorecard on Women’s Health and Reproductive Care. Long story short: “Women’s health is in a perilous place.” Lead author Sara Collins added: “Women’s health is in a very fragile place. Our health system is failing women of reproductive age, especially women of color and low-income women.”

The report’s findings are chilling:

Using the latest available data, the scorecard findings show significant disparities between states in reproductive care and women’s health, as well as deepening racial and ethnic gaps in health outcomes, with stark inequities in avoidable deaths and access to essential health services. The findings suggest these gaps could widen further, especially for women of color and those with low incomes in states with restricted access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

“We found a threefold difference across states with the highest rates of death concentrated in the southeastern states,” David Radley, Ph.D., MPH, the fund’s senior scientist of tracking health system performance, said in a news conference last week. “We also saw big differences across states in women’s ability to access care.”

Joseph R. Betancourt, M.D., Commonwealth Fund President, said: “Where you live matters to your health and healthcare. This is having a disproportionate effect on women of color and women with low incomes.” Dr. Jonas Swartz, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina agreed, telling NBC News: “Your zip code shouldn’t dictate your reproductive health destiny. But that is the reality.”

The study evaluated a variety of health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, maternal and infant mortality, preterm birth rates, syphilis among women of reproductive age, infants born with congenital syphilis, self-reported health status, postpartum depression, breast and cervical cancer deaths, poor mental health, and intimate partner violence. To measure coverage, access, and affordability, it looked at insurance coverage, usual source of care, cost-related problems getting health care, and system capacity for reproductive health services.

There are, as you can imagine, charts galore.

The lowest performing states – and I doubt these will be a surprise to anyone — were Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, and Oklahoma. The highest rated states were Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Putting the ‘value’ in value-based payments

Feb 23, 2024

By JOSH SEIDMAN

Like Matthew Holt, I have also been ranting about the fact that “We’re spending way too much money on stuff that is the wrong thing.” As Matthew said, “it’s a rant, but a rant with a point!” And that’s a lot better than most rants these days. In addition to having a point, I’m also bringing a lot of data to my rant.

More specifically, we’ve known for a long time that clinical care only drives 20% (maybe less) of health outcomes, yet we continue to spend more and more on it.

We do that despite the well-documented fact that the U.S. performs worse than most OECD countries despite spending far more. I remember, in my first health care job in 1990, being blown away that the U.S. spent $719 billion on health care (or $1.395 trillion in 2022 dollars). Here we are, trillions of dollars later ($4.465 trillion) doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

After more than 30 years in health CARE, I decided that I really wanted to start doing something about HEALTH, which is why 3 years ago I joined Fountain House, the founder of the clubhouse movement, a psychosocial rehabilitation model for people with serious mental illness (SMI)—a model now replicated by 200 U.S. clubhouses and another 100+ in more than 30 countries around the world. It was actually people living with SMI that launched Fountain House in 1948, realizing long ago that addressing social drivers of health offered a new road to recovery and rehabilitation. Now 75 years later, we’re finally seeing some parts of the health care system come to terms with the necessity of addressing health-related social needs.

With decades of evidence behind us, Fountain House has spent the last year and a half building an economic model to understand clubhouses’ societal economic impact when one takes into account a wide range of costs—mental health, physical health, disability, criminal justice, and productivity or lost wages.

Beyond the Scale: How organizations should evaluate the success of obesity management solutions

Sep 8, 2023

By CAITLYN EDWARDS

Obesity treatment is often framed as a race to the bottom — how much weight can someone lose? Five percent? Ten percent? And with recent scientific advancements in anti-obesity medications such as GLP-1s, what about even 15-20%?

Obesity treatment, though, isn’t just about the number on the scale. It’s about moving the needle on biomarkers that really matter to overall health. Seven out of the top ten leading causes of death and disability in the United States today are chronic diseases that have links to overweight and obesity. The metabolic benefits of just 5% weight loss can be life-changing for many people with obesity-related comorbidities. This means that for organizations looking to treat their chronic conditions, obesity care shouldn’t be all about striving for the lowest possible weight.

Indeed, consensus and practice statements from groups including the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American Diabetes Association, and The Obesity Society, support weight loss programs that achieve clinically significant weight loss outcomes, defined as greater than or equal to 5% of an individual’s baseline body weight. This number is derived from decades of research demonstrating that even modest weight loss has impacts on physiological health including type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and many kinds of cancer.

People who attain just 5% weight loss see the following health improvements:

Reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure
Risk reductions of developing type 2 diabetes by almost 60%
Reductions in HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels
Greater insulin sensitivity
Decreased need for newly prescribed diabetes, hypertension, and lipid-lowering medications

Understanding that obesity outcomes include more than just the number on the scale, how can benefit managers and health plan leaders measure success? Here are some things organizations should look for when evaluating an obesity management solution:

N-size of outcomes

While a high weight loss average may sound impressive, it doesn’t tell the whole story. A better measure might be the number of people in a program able to achieve greater than 5% weight loss. The fact is that weight loss averages are easily skewed by outliers. An exceptionally high average may not be representative of what is actually taking place at the individual level. What matters is that a large percentage of people in the program are able to see clinically significant results.

Emphasis on behavior change

Another way to measure the success of an obesity management solution is by the sustainability of its outcomes — primarily through adopting healthier behaviors. Intensive behavioral therapy is crucial to obesity treatment and can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Support from expert dietitians and coaches can help promote a healthy relationship with food for optimal weight loss.

Through medical nutrition therapy, dietitians create personalized calorie and macronutrient goals to foster weight loss in a healthy, sustainable way. Also, self-directed cognitive behavioral therapy can help people become more aware of underlying thoughts and behavior patterns around food.

Step therapy approach to treatment

Some obesity management solutions avoid medications entirely while others rely solely on expensive GLP-1s. But both of those methods fall short of providing the best care to the most people at the lowest cost possible.

The best obesity management solutions take a clinically rigorous step-therapy approach to treatment. This way, they carefully manage access to expensive anti-obesity medications while achieving meaningful outcomes. Many of their members will achieve clinically significant weight loss through behavior change alone. Some may need a boost from lower-intensity, lower-cost anti-obesity medications to reach their goals. Others, with severe obesity or multiple cardio-metabolic conditions, may require higher-intensity anti-obesity medications like GLP-1s. Treatment levels can be safely tried in succession with needs and costs in mind.

It’s likely only 5-10% of a given population would end up using GLP-1s with this step-therapy approach, while the majority of people would still get clinically meaningful results without such intensive treatment.

Address SDOH to personalize care

One-size-fits-all solutions — like those that insist on a highly restrictive diet — miss the mark on health equity. Not everyone can afford expensive meat-heavy diets and they don’t always line up with people’s cultural preferences. Similarly, a program that simply doles out GLP-1s without helping people manage side effects doesn’t work and will only drain budgets.

The key to unlock improved outcomes is by helping people address SDOH challenges like food insecurity, language barriers, cultural factors, physical environment, and more. A good obesity solution should expand access to bilingual registered dietitians who are trained in dietary considerations and eating patterns for many different cultures and ethnic groups. They can help folks plan meals around limited budgets and specific dietary needs.

Conclusion

Organizations have much to consider when evaluating obesity solutions for their population. It’s easy to be swayed by simple metrics that seem indisputable. But, in the end, outcomes like 5% weight loss and reductions in HbA1c for the majority of an eligible population are what counts. Sustainable outcomes rely on real behavior change, a careful step-therapy approach to medication, and personalized care when it comes to social determinants of health.

Caitlyn Edwards, PhD, RDN, is a Senior Clinical Research Specialist at Vida Health

Population Health Management: SDOH Challenges and Solutions

Aug 7, 2023

By ARJUN GOSAIN

In the United States alone, one in ten people live in poverty, 10.2% of households are food insecure, and more than half of people living below the poverty line are transportation insecure. These statistics represent social determinants of health (SDOH) measures that describe a patient’s experience outside hospital walls.

Health.gov defines SDOH as “the conditions in the environments where people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” This definition argues that a patient’s experiences are just as crucial if not more telling than their biology.

And this makes sense as a person who is housing insecure may not have the same access to nutritional food, transportation, or social support. Additionally, some patients, in their efforts to maintain health, may experience discrimination based on their skin color or religious beliefs.

Some studies have found SDOH can drive up to 80% of health outcomes. This means that the traditional healthcare model—hospitalization, healthcare delivery, and treatment—only affects a mere 20% of a person’s overall health. To tap into this 80%, healthcare professionals need data. However, SDOH data collection poses significant challenges.

SDOH Overview

Before we dive into data collection, let’s review the specific measures of SDOH and why they should take top priority among healthcare professionals.

SDOH concepts include:

Employment insecurity: Measures whether the patient is employed and their current employment or unemployment experience. This includes whether they were harassed on the job or experiencing unequal pay. Employment insecurity can lead to financial stress, mental health problems, and reduced healthcare access.
Psychological circumstances: Measures current events that are affecting the patient’s health. This encompasses a wide range from unwanted pregnancies to exposure to war or violence. Stress, anxiety, and other negative emotions can have a direct effect on a patient’s physical health and contribute to disease development.
Housing insecurity: Notes whether a patient has a consistent place to live or is forced to move regularly. Homelessness or housing insecurity can lead to exposure to the elements, mental health challenges, and increased vulnerability to infection.
Social adversity: Examines a patient’s social experience including any discrimination or persecution the individual may be facing. Increased social adversity can cause an individual to socially isolate and develop feelings of depression.
Transportation: Observes the patient’s access to transportation including available public transport. Missed appointments can be the direct result of transportation inaccessibility which leads to a decrease in the quality of care.
Food insecurity: Indicates whether a patient has adequate food access and safe drinking water access. Receiving adequate nutrition is essential for maintaining optimal physical health. For example, if a child is food insecure, it can lead to serious developmental issues and chronic disease.
Education and literacy: Observes a patient’s ability to read and comprehend hospital paperwork. Note that individuals with higher literacy and education rates typically make more informed health decisions.
Occupational risk: Examines how a patient’s current employment affects their overall health. Determines if their job site places them at risk of toxin exposure, physical harm, undue stress, or other hazardous conditions that can contribute to injuries or illnesses.
Economic insecurity: Measures a patient’s poverty level to determine if copays, rent, and hospital bills are manageable. A patient living with inadequate finances will face a greater barrier to quality care.
Lack of support: Notes whether a patient has reliable support when experiencing difficult circumstances such as the death of a loved one. If a patient has a present support network, they will be able to receive practical, emotional, and physical assistance in times of need.
Upbringing: Takes a patient’s childhood, family, and upbringing into account to assess if a patient is carrying trauma from previous years. Adverse childhood experiences can increase the risk of chronic diseases and mental health issues later in life.
Language: Examines any language or communication concerns, so that a patient can both communicate their issues and understand oral and written treatment. Miscommunications can lead to misdiagnoses and inadequate treatment.

These contributing factors cannot be ignored since, as previously stated, they can directly impact up to 80% of health outcomes. Thus, organizations that choose to neglect SDOH factors are only focused on the 20%.

This is why providers must find ways to address SDOH in a meaningful and productive manner, which is where SDOH data comes in. The collection and analysis of SDOH data can help providers identify at-risk populations to provide informed, effective interventions. Measures like patient needs assessments and population-level health disparity analysis can let providers get to the root cause without the guesswork.

SDOH Data Collection Challenges

SDOH data collection is a sensitive topic. After all, if a patient is experiencing abuse or is unemployed, they most likely would not disclose that information outright. Providers also have limited time to ask additional questions because many feel rushed during routine consultations and may not have the resources needed to collect SDOH data.

Beyond SDOH data scarcity, there is the issue of standardization. How providers collect housing data, for instance, can vary across definitions and measurements, making quantifying data difficult. So, how can providers offer whole-person care with limited data and a lack of definitive measurements? The solution is three-fold.

COVID-19: Hidden Coinfections and Chain Reactions Parasitic Infectious Relationships within Us

Apr 15, 2020• 21

By SIMON YU, MD, COL, USA (Ret)

Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), opened up a new front in the Coronavirus War by saying we don’t just need to treat the acute disease, we need to treat the underlying conditions that make people more susceptible to serious disease progression. He focused on heart disease, and managing mitigating risk factors such as CVD, diabetes, hypertension and smoking in order to increase people’s odds for recovery. The initial focus has been pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with risk factors including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and emphysema.

Dr. Frieden calls for better management of people’s underlying health problems to help mitigate the impact of COVID-19. I would take this one step further and say we need to go beyond managing chronic diseases, and find and treat the pathogens that underlie and fuel their pathologies. Why?

In 2001, my work as an Army Reserve medical officer took me to Bolivia to treat 10,000 Andes Indians with parasite medications. Not only did this resolve their parasite problems, but many reported it helped them overcome a range of additional chronic health problems. When I returned to St. Louis, I began to dig deeper with my chronic disease and “mystery disease” patients and treat some of them for parasite problems, and saw many improve. I expanded this “search and destroy” mission with my patients to fungal and dental infections, as I learned many such infections – often overlooked in medicine today – are overlapping, synergistic, and can present as chronic illness.

Taking Healthcare Innovation Beyond the “Peloton Crowd” | Andy Slavitt, Town Hall Ventures

Feb 13, 2020

By JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Andy Slavitt, former Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and founder and partner at Town Hall Ventures, talks about how venture capitalists and health tech startups can help make healthcare more affordable and accessible for the 130 million Americans beyond the “Peloton crowd.” We ask Andy if he thinks “social determinants of health” is more than just an industry buzzword, get his advice for startups motivated to make a difference, and hear his predictions for what will change healthcare in this new decade.

Filmed at J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco, January 2020.

The Social Context and Vulnerabilities that Challenge Health Care in the San Joaquin Valley of California

Feb 4, 2020

By ALYA AHMAD, MD

Call it what you want, white privilege and health disparity appear to be two sides of the same coin. We used to consider ethnic or genetic variants as risk factors, prognostic to health conditions. However, the social determinants of health (SDOH) have increasingly become more relevant as causes of disease prevalence and complexity in health care.

As a pediatric hospitalist in the San Joaquin Valley region, I encounter these social determinants daily. They were particularly evident as I treated a 12-year old Hispanic boy who was admitted with a ruptured appendix and developed a complicated abscess, requiring an extensive hospitalization due to his complication. Why? Did he have the genetic propensity for this adverse outcome? Was it because he was non-compliant with his antibiotic regimen? No.

Rather, circumstances due to his social context presented major hurdles to his care. He had trouble getting to a hospital or clinic. He did not want to burden his parents—migrant workers with erratic long hours—further delaying his evaluation. And his Spanish-speaking mother never wondered why, despite surgery and drainage, he was not healing per the usual expectation.

When he was first hospitalized, his mother bounced around in silent desperation from their rural clinic to the emergency room more than 20 miles from their home and back to the clinic, only to be referred again to that same emergency room. By the time he was admitted 2 days later, he was profoundly ill. The surgeon had to be called in the middle of the night for an emergency open surgical appendectomy and drainage. Even after post-operative care, while he was on broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics, his fevers, chills and pain persisted. To avoid worrying his mother, he continued to deny his symptoms. Five days after his operation, he required another procedure for complex abscess drainage.

A System that Fails Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers

Dec 23, 2019• 1

By PHUOC LE, MD, CONNIE CHAN, and BROOKE WARREN

I recently took care of Rosaria[1], a cheerful 60-year-old woman who came in for chronic joint pain. She grew up in rural Mexico, but came to the US thirty years ago to work in the strawberry fields of California. After examining her, I recommended a few blood tests and x-rays as next steps. “Lo siento pero no voy a tener seguro hasta el primavera — Sorry but I won’t have insurance again until the Spring.” Rosaria, who is a seasonal farmworker, told me she only gets access to health care during the strawberry season. Her medical care will have to wait, and in the meantime, her joints continue to deteriorate.

Migrant and seasonal agricultural workers (MSAW) are people who work “temporarily or seasonally in farm fields, orchards, canneries, plant nurseries, fish/seafood packing plants, and more.”[2] MSAW are more than temporary laborers, though— they are individuals and families who have time and time again helped the US in its greatest time of need. During WWI, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1917 ^[3] because of the extreme shortage of US workers. This allowed farmers to bring about 73,000 Mexican workers into the US. During WWII, the US once again called upon Mexican laborers to fill the vacancies in the US workforce under the Bracero Program in 1943. Over the 23 years the Bracero Program was in place, the US employed 4.6 million Mexican laborers. Despite the US being indebted to the Mexican laborers, who helped the economy from collapsing in the gravest of times, the US deported 400,000 Mexican immigrants and Mexican-American citizens during the Great Depression.