Associations of 4 Geographic Social Vulnerability Indices With US COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality.

Objectives. To examine and compare how 4 indices of population-level social disadvantage-the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Minority Health-Social Vulnerability Index (MH-SVI)-are associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Methods. Spatial autoregressive models adjusted for population density, urbanicity, and state fixed effects were used to estimate associations of county-level SVI, MH-SVI, CCVI, and ADI values with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Results. All 4 disadvantage indices had similar positive associations with COVID-19 incidence. Each index was also significantly associated with COVID-19 mortality, but the ADI had a stronger association than the CCVI, MH-SVI, and SVI. Conclusions. Despite differences in component measures and weighting, all 4 of the indices we assessed demonstrated associations between greater disadvantage and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Public Health Implications. Our findings suggest that each of the 4 disadvantage indices can be used to assist public health leaders in targeting ongoing first-dose and booster or third-dose vaccines as well as new vaccines or other resources to regions most vulnerable to negative COVID-19 outcomes, weighing potential tradeoffs in their political and practical acceptability. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1584-1588. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307018).

Utilization of Women's Preventive Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The association of the COVID-19 pandemic with women's preventive health care use is unknown. Objective: To describe utilization of women's preventive health services. Design Setting and Participants: Cross-sectional study of women aged 18 to 74 years enrolled in a commercial health maintenance organization in Michigan. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic (2019-2020). Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of receiving breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) insertions, and pharmacy-obtained contraception, adjusted for month, age, county, zip code characteristics (per-capita income, non-White percentage of population, non-English-proficient percentage of population), and plan designation (primary plan holder vs dependent). Results: The study population included 685 373 women aged 18 to 74 years, enrolled for 13 000 715 person-months, of whom 10 061 275 person-months (77.4%) were among women aged 25 to 64 years and 8 020 215 (61.7%) were the primary plan holder, with mean zip code per capita income of $33 708, 20.2% mean zip code non-White population, and 3.4% mean zip code non-English-speaking population. For services requiring an in-person visit (breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, STI testing, and LARC insertions), utilization declined by 60% to 90% during the spring of 2020, with a nadir in April 2020, after which utilization for all services recovered to close to 2019 levels by July 2020. Claims for pharmacy-obtained hormonal contraceptives in 2020 were consistently 15% to 30% lower than 2019. The AORs of a woman receiving a given preventive service in 2020 compared with 2019 were significantly lower for breast cancer screening (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79-0.80), cervical cancer screening (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.80-0.81), STI screening (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84), LARC insertion (AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90), and pharmacy-obtained contraception (AOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74) (all P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of women enrolled in a large US commercial health maintenance organization plan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with large but transient declines in rates of breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, STI screening, and LARC insertions, and moderate persistent declines in pharmacy-obtained hormonal contraceptives. The overall odds of a woman receiving a given preventive service in 2020 was 20% to 30% lower than 2019. Further research into disparities in access to care and the health outcomes of decreased use of these key health services is warranted.

Contribution of Individual- and Neighborhood-Level Social, Demographic, and Health Factors to COVID-19 Hospitalization Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have been observed, factors contributing to these differences are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes are related to neighborhood-level social vulnerability, independent of patient-level clinical factors. DESIGN: Pooled cross-sectional study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: 38 Michigan hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults older than 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in a participating site between March and December 2020. MEASUREMENTS: COVID-19 outcomes included acute organ dysfunction, organ failure, invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, death, and discharge disposition. Social vulnerability was measured by the social vulnerability index (SVI), a composite measure of social disadvantage. RESULTS: Compared with patients in low-vulnerability ZIP codes, those living in high-vulnerability ZIP codes were more frequently treated in the intensive care unit (29.0% vs. 24.5%); more frequently received mechanical ventilation (19.3% vs. 14.2%); and experienced higher rates of organ dysfunction (51.9% vs. 48.6%), organ failure (54.7% vs. 51.6%), and in-hospital death (19.4% vs. 16.7%). In mixed-effects regression analyses accounting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, an increase in a patient's neighborhood SVI by 0.25 (1 quartile) was associated with greater likelihood of mechanical ventilation (increase of 2.1 percentage points), acute organ dysfunction (increase of 2.8 percentage points), and acute organ failure (increase of 2.8 percentage points) but was not associated with intensive care unit stay, mortality, or discharge disposition. LIMITATION: Observational data focused on hospitalizations in a single state. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from socially vulnerable neighborhoods presented with greater illness severity and required more intensive treatment, but once hospitalized they did not experience differences in hospital mortality or discharge disposition. Policies that target socially vulnerable neighborhoods and access to COVID-19 care may help ameliorate health disparities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships Program, the Michigan Public Health Institute, and the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services.

Trends in Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The association of the COVID-19 pandemic with the quality of ambulatory care is unknown. Hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are a well-studied measure of the quality of ambulatory care; however, they may also be associated with other patient-level and system-level factors. Objective: To describe trends in hospital admissions for ACSCs in the prepandemic period (March 2019 to February 2020) compared with the pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a commercial health maintenance organization in Michigan included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period. Exposure: COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted relative risk (aRR) of ACSC hospitalizations and intensive care unit stays for ACSC hospitalizations and adjusted incidence rate ratio of the length of stay of ACSC hospitalizations in the prepandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) vs pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021) periods, adjusted for patient age, sex, calendar month of admission, and county of residence. Results: The study population included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period, in which 51.3% of person-months (n = 6 547 231) were for female patients, with a relatively even age distribution between the ages of 24 and 64 years. The relative risk of having any ACSC hospitalization in the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76; P < .001). This decrease in risk was slightly larger in magnitude than the overall reduction in non-ACSC, non-COVID-19 hospitalization rates (aRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83; P < .001). Large reductions were found in the relative risk of respiratory-related ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001), with non-statistically significant reductions in diabetes-related ACSCs (aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00; P = .05) and a statistically significant reduction in all other ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85; P < .001). Among ACSC hospitalizations, no change was found in the percentage that included an intensive care unit stay (aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04; P = .64), and no change was found in the length of stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a large commercial health maintenance organization plan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reductions in both non-ACSC and ACSC hospitalizations, with particularly large reductions seen in respiratory-related ACSCs. These reductions were likely due to many patient-level and health system-level factors associated with hospitalization rates. Further research into the causes and long-term outcomes associated with these reductions in ACSC admissions is needed to understand how the pandemic has affected the delivery of ambulatory and hospital care in the US.

Primary Care Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Simulated Patient Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices have experienced major strains during the COVID-19 pandemic, such that patients newly seeking care may face potential barriers to timely visits. OBJECTIVE: To quantify availability and wait times for new patient appointments in primary care and to describe how primary care practices are guiding patients with suspected COVID-19. DESIGN: Trained callers conducted simulated patient calls to 800 randomly sampled primary care practices between September 14, 2020, and September 28, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: We extracted complete primary care physician listings from large commercial insurance networks in four geographically dispersed states between September 10 and 14, 2020 (n=11,521). After excluding non-physician providers and removing duplicate phone numbers, we identified 2705 unique primary care physician practices from which we randomly sampled 200 practices in each region. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care appointment availability, median wait time in days, and practice guidance to patients suspecting COVID-19 infection. KEY RESULTS: Among 56% of listed practices that had accurate contact information listed in the directory, 84% offered a new patient in-person or virtual appointment. Median wait time was 10 days (IQR 3-26 days). The most common guidance in case of suspected COVID-19 was clinician consultation, which was offered in 41% of completed calls. Callers were otherwise directed to on-site testing (14%), off-site testing (24%), a COVID-19 hotline (8%), or an urgent care/emergency department (12%), while 2% of practices had no guidance to offer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite resource constraints, most reachable primary care practices offered timely new patient appointments as well as direct COVID-19 care. Pandemic mitigation strategies should account for and support the central role of primary care practices in the community-based pandemic response.

Association of Social and Demographic Factors With COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates in the US.

Importance: Descriptive data have revealed significant racial/ethnic disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the US, but underlying mechanisms of disparities remain unknown. Objective: To examine the association between county-level sociodemographic risk factors and US COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed the association between US county-level sociodemographic risk factors and COVID-19 incidence using mixed-effects negative binomial regression, and COVID-19 mortality using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. Data on COVID-19 incidence and mortality were collected from January 20 to July 29, 2020. The association of social risk factors with weekly cumulative incidence and mortality was also examined by interacting time with the index measures, using a random intercept to account for repeated measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sociodemographic data from publicly available data sets, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which includes subindices of socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, racial/ethnic minority and English language proficiency status, and housing and transportation. Results: As of July 29, 2020, there were a total of 4 289 283 COVID-19 cases and 147 074 COVID-19 deaths in the US. An increase of 0.1 point in SVI score was associated with a 14.3% increase in incidence rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.13-1.16; P < .001) and 13.7% increase in mortality rate (IRR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16; P < .001), or an excess of 87 COVID-19 cases and 3 COVID-19 deaths per 100 000 population for a SVI score change from 0.5 to 0.6 in a midsize metropolitan county; subindices were also associated with both outcomes. A 0.1-point increase in the overall SVI was associated with a 0.9% increase in weekly cumulative increase in incidence rate (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01; P < .001) and 0.5% increase in mortality rate (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a wide range of sociodemographic risk factors, including socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic minority status, household composition, and environmental factors, were significantly associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. To address inequities in the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, these social vulnerabilities and their root causes must be addressed.

Health Policy Perspective: Medicaid and State Politics Beyond COVID.

The COVID-19 pandemic is poised to drastically alter the Medicaid program. While state Medicaid programs are currently expanding coverage policies and enrollment to address acute public health needs, states will soon face significant budget shortfalls. These impending changes may renew partisan debates about restrictive policies like work requirements, which generally require beneficiaries to verify their participation in certain activities-such as employment, job search, or training programs-in order to receive or retain coverage. We argue that restrictive Medicaid policies are driven, to a great extent, by political party affiliation, highlighting the outsized role of partisanship in Medicaid policy adoption. To combat these dynamics, additional efforts are needed to improve community-informed decision-making, strengthen evaluation approaches to tie evidence to policymaking, and boost participation in and understanding of the political processes that affect policy change.