Melissa L McCarthy1, Zhaonian Zheng2, Marcee E Wilder3, Angelo Elmi4, Yixuan Li2, Scott L Zeger5. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Electronic address: melmccar@gwu.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC; Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the relationship between social determinants of health and emergency department (ED) visits in the Medicaid Cohort of the District of Columbia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 8,943 adult Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a social determinants of health survey at study enrollment. We merged the social determinants of health data with participants' Medicaid claims data for up to 24 months before enrollment. Using latent class analysis, we grouped our participants into 4 distinct social risk classes based on similar responses to the social determinants of health questions. We classified ED visits as primary care treatable or ED care needed, using the Minnesota algorithm. We calculated the adjusted log relative primary care treatable and ED care needed visit rates among the social risk classes by using generalized linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: The majority (71%) of the 49,111 ED visits made by the 8,943 participants were ED care needed. The adjusted log relative rate of both primary care treatable and ED care needed visit rates increased with each higher (worse) social risk class compared with the lowest class. Participants in the highest social risk class (ie, unemployed and many social risks) had a log relative primary care treatable and ED care needed rate of 39% (range 28% to 50%) and 29% (range 21% to 38%), respectively, adjusted for age, sex, and illness severity. CONCLUSION: There is a strong relationship between social determinants of health and ED utilization in this Medicaid sample that is worth investigating in other Medicaid samples and patient populations.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the relationship between social determinants of health and emergency department (ED) visits in the Medicaid Cohort of the District of Columbia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 8,943 adult Medicaid beneficiaries who completed a social determinants of health survey at study enrollment. We merged the social determinants of health data with participants' Medicaid claims data for up to 24 months before enrollment. Using latent class analysis, we grouped our participants into 4 distinct social risk classes based on similar responses to the social determinants of health questions. We classified ED visits as primary care treatable or ED care needed, using the Minnesota algorithm. We calculated the adjusted log relative primary care treatable and ED care needed visit rates among the social risk classes by using generalized linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: The majority (71%) of the 49,111 ED visits made by the 8,943 participants were ED care needed. The adjusted log relative rate of both primary care treatable and ED care needed visit rates increased with each higher (worse) social risk class compared with the lowest class. Participants in the highest social risk class (ie, unemployed and many social risks) had a log relative primary care treatable and ED care needed rate of 39% (range 28% to 50%) and 29% (range 21% to 38%), respectively, adjusted for age, sex, and illness severity. CONCLUSION: There is a strong relationship between social determinants of health and ED utilization in this Medicaid sample that is worth investigating in other Medicaid samples and patient populations.
Authors: Seth A Berkowitz; Linda M Delahanty; Jean Terranova; Barbara Steiner; Melanie P Ruazol; Roshni Singh; Naysha N Shahid; Deborah J Wexler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Steven L Bernstein; Gail D'Onofrio; June Rosner; Stephanie O'Malley; Robert Makuch; Susan Busch; Michael V Pantalon; Benjamin Toll Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Arjun K Venkatesh; Hao Mei; Keith E Kocher; Michael Granovsky; Ziad Obermeyer; Erica S Spatz; Craig Rothenberg; Harlan M Krumholz; Zhenqui Lin Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Gail D'Onofrio; Patrick G O'Connor; Michael V Pantalon; Marek C Chawarski; Susan H Busch; Patricia H Owens; Steven L Bernstein; David A Fiellin Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Molly Moore Jeffery; M Fernanda Bellolio; Julian Wolfson; Jean M Abraham; Bryan E Dowd; Robert L Kane Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Bisan A Salhi; Amy Zeidan; Christine R Stehman; Sarah Kleinschmidt; E Liang Liu; Kristen Bascombe; Kian Preston-Suni; Melissa H White; Jeff Druck; Bernard L Lopez; Margaret E Samuels-Kalow Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Janice Blanchard; Yixuan Li; Suzanne K Bentley; Michelle D Lall; Anne M Messman; Yiju Teresa Liu; Deborah B Diercks; Rory Merritt-Recchia; Randy Sorge; Jordan M Warchol; Christopher Greene; James Griffith; Rita A Manfredi; Melissa McCarthy Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2022-05-22 Impact factor: 5.221