Patrick Y Liu1, Orly Bell1, Olivia Wu1, Monique Holguin2, Christina Lozano3, Erika Jasper3, Erin Saleeby4, Lynne Smith5, Peter Szilagyi6, Adam Schickedanz6. 1. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Dworkin School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. California State University Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poverty and financial stress affect prenatal health and well-being as well as early childhood development. This study sought to examine interest in clinic-based financial services to address financial stress in low-income, Medicaid-enrolled prenatal patients and its relationship with self-reported social risks. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients at a large safety-net prenatal clinic. Participants completed a written survey on interest in linkage to financial services, poverty-related financial stress, difficulty affording social needs, and interest in services to address material hardships. We compared interest in financial and social needs services by level of financial stress using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 108) were entirely Medicaid-enrolled, with a majority identifying as Hispanic/Latinx (57%) or Black/African American (20%). Sixty-four percent indicated interest in connection to any of the financial services surveyed. Interest was highest in employment (52%), savings and budgeting (49%), job training/adult education (49%), and financial counseling (48%) services. Individuals with high financial stress, compared to those with low financial stress, expressed a higher level of interest in financial services (aRR = 1.61 [95% CI 1.12-2.39]). Interest in financial services was associated with difficulty affording social needs (aRR = 2.24 [95% CI 1.33-4.43]) and interest in services addressing social needs (aRR = 1.45 [95% CI 1.13-1.92]). CONCLUSION: In this study of low-income, Medicaid-insured prenatal patients, there was a high degree of interest in clinic-based financial services. Integrating financial services into prenatal health care appears to be an approach that low-income patients would be interested in to directly address poverty and financial stress.
BACKGROUND: Poverty and financial stress affect prenatal health and well-being as well as early childhood development. This study sought to examine interest in clinic-based financial services to address financial stress in low-income, Medicaid-enrolled prenatal patients and its relationship with self-reported social risks. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients at a large safety-net prenatal clinic. Participants completed a written survey on interest in linkage to financial services, poverty-related financial stress, difficulty affording social needs, and interest in services to address material hardships. We compared interest in financial and social needs services by level of financial stress using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 108) were entirely Medicaid-enrolled, with a majority identifying as Hispanic/Latinx (57%) or Black/African American (20%). Sixty-four percent indicated interest in connection to any of the financial services surveyed. Interest was highest in employment (52%), savings and budgeting (49%), job training/adult education (49%), and financial counseling (48%) services. Individuals with high financial stress, compared to those with low financial stress, expressed a higher level of interest in financial services (aRR = 1.61 [95% CI 1.12-2.39]). Interest in financial services was associated with difficulty affording social needs (aRR = 2.24 [95% CI 1.33-4.43]) and interest in services addressing social needs (aRR = 1.45 [95% CI 1.13-1.92]). CONCLUSION: In this study of low-income, Medicaid-insured prenatal patients, there was a high degree of interest in clinic-based financial services. Integrating financial services into prenatal health care appears to be an approach that low-income patients would be interested in to directly address poverty and financial stress.
Entities:
Keywords:
access to care; community health; obstetrics; patientcenteredness; underserved communities
Exposure to prenatal psychosocial stressors increase the likelihood of complications
during gestation, labor, and delivery.[1,2] Poverty similarly well
understood to be associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications as
well as adversely affect early childhood health and development.[3-5] Emerging evidence suggests that
chronic psychosocial stress associated with poverty—termed poverty-related financial
stress—is a major mediator of poverty’s effects on health and well-being.[5,6] Recent studies attempting to
characterize the direct effect of financial stress or strain on health outcomes have
uncovered its associations with decreased birth weight,
adverse impacts on the developing brain,
and increased risk of postpartum depression.Regular prenatal screening for measures of psychosocial stressors and social risk
factors are recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Resultant linkages to services addressing social needs, such as food and
housing insecurity, aim to minimize their effect on health and well-being.
However, many of the screened social needs are downstream effects of poverty.
Little published evidence exists on the extent to which prenatal patients are
interested in being connected to services that prevent and ameliorate poverty more
directly as part of healthcare delivery. There may be substantial interest in
anti-poverty financial services in the prenatal setting, particularly given the
increased financial hardship often encountered in pregnancy and early parenthood,
and the potential for such interventions to address prenatal patients’ psychosocial
stressors, social needs, and health, along with the health of their children.Our study aims to fill these gaps in the literature and has 3 main objectives: (1) to
characterize interest in anti-poverty financial services among low-income prenatal
patients at a large public hospital in Los Angeles County, (2) to assess the
association between financial stress and interest in financial service
interventions, and (3) to examine the associations between social needs and interest
in financial services.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients of the prenatal clinic at
Harbor-UCLA Medical Center from November 13, 2019 to November 27, 2019. The clinic
is an academically-affiliated safety net women’s health clinic in Los Angeles County
which serves predominantly low-income, Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American
patients that are entirely Medicaid-insured or -eligible.On days in the study period where the clinic had new intakes, all patients attending
prenatal care visits were approached and consented for the survey in the waiting
area. Prior to patient clinical encounters, clinic clerical staff distributed the
survey and explained its primary goals: to assess financial stress among clinic
families and interest in financial and social needs services to help inform the
development of new clinic-based services. Exclusion criteria included those unable
to provide consent (eg, age less than 18), or with diminished capacity to consent,
and those who did not speak English or Spanish. All eligible participants provided
oral consent before completing the survey. The study was approved by the UCLA
Institutional Review Board.The survey assessed demographic characteristics, interest in financial services for
low-income individuals and families, perceived financial stress, social needs, and
interest in social services. Participants were queried on their interest in common
financial services (“How interested are you in these financial services?”),
including general financial counseling, free tax preparation for low-income
households, employment, job training/adult education, debt consolidation, credit
counseling, savings and budgeting, and legal advice. Responses were scored using a
5-point Likert scale (“Not interested,” “A little interested,” “Somewhat
interested,” “Very interested,” “Extremely interested”) and dichotomized to any
interest (“A little interested” and above) versus no interest (“Not interested”).
Participants were additionally queried on difficulty affording social needs (“How
hard is it for you to afford these basic living costs?”) including rent, utilities,
food, medical care, transportation, child care, and child care supplies (ie,
diapers. formula). Responses were scored using a 5-point Likert scale (“Not hard at
all,” “A little hard,” “Somewhat hard,” “Very hard,” ‘Extremely hard”) and
dichotomized to any difficulty (“A little hard” and above) versus no difficulty
(“Not hard at all”). Participants were asked whether or not they would be interested
in connection to services addressing the above social needs domains (binary measure)
(“Would you be interested in services to help with these basic living costs”?).Perceived financial stress was assessed using the Federal Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau’s Financial Well-Being Scale (CFPB-FWBS) short form.
The 5-item scale has been validated against other measures of financial
hardship, common indicators of socioeconomic status, and it is strongly associated
with overall psychosocial stress. We utilized the CFPB-FWBS as it directly measures
a person’s experience of financial strain, its extensive validation, and its
widespread use in financial services. Per technical guidelines, questions were
scored on a 5-point Likert scale, totaled, and scaled to a total financial
well-being score (range 19 and 82).
Individuals with scores equal to or less than 49 were categorized as having
“high financial stress,” a threshold previously used in literature.
This coincides with CFPB-FWBS published score ranges of very low (19–29), low
(30–37), and medium low (38–49) financial well-being.
We compare to individuals with scores equal to or greater than 58, which we
identify as having “low financial stress,” coinciding with CFPB-FWBS score ranges of
high (58-67) and very high (68-82) financial well-being.
Statistical Analysis
Interest in financial services was evaluated as a composite of interest in any
services, as well as for each service individually. Differences in the
proportion of individuals interested in financial services by level of financial
stress were compared using Chi-squared test of proportions. Two-sided
P-values of <.05 were considered statistically
significant.Multivariate log-binomial regressions were constructed to determine the adjusted
risk ratio (aRR) and their 95% confidence intervals of individuals with high
financial stress for expressing interest in financial services, overall and by
service type. Models were adjusted for participant characteristics including
race/ethnicity, age, and preferred language. Associations between any difficulty
affording social needs and overall interest in social needs linkages were
assessed with multivariate log-binomial regressions adjusting for
race/ethnicity, age, and preferred language, estimating adjusted risk ratios
(aRR) and their 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in R
version 4.0.1.
Results
Of 139 scheduled visits during the days of recruitment, 108 individuals attended
their visit in the clinic, and no individuals met the exclusion criteria. All 108
individuals were approached and completed the survey (response rate 100%, Table 1). Most
participants identified as Hispanic/Latinx (57%) and 20% identified as Black/African
American. A majority were 22 to 31 years old (55%), and 33% were 32-years or older.
A 10th of the participants spoke Spanish as their preferred language.
Table 1.
Unadjusted Characteristics of Participants, Overall and by Interest in
Financial Services.
Characteristic
All respondents, N = 108
Any interest in financial services, N = 69*
No interest, N = 39*
P-value‡
Age, % (no.)
.2
18-21
12% (13)
77% (10)
23% (3)
22-31
55% (57)
58% (33)
42% (24)
32+
33% (34)
76% (26)
24% (8)
Race/ethnicity, % (no.)
.3‡
Black/African American, non-Hispanic
20% (20)
65% (13)
35% (7)
Hispanic/Latinx
57% (57)
63% (36)
37% (21)
Asian, non-Hispanic
7.0% (7)
71% (5)
29% (2)
White, non-Hispanic
8.0% (8)
75% (6)
25% (2)
Other
8.0% (8)
100% (8)
0% (0)
Preferred language, % (no.)
.3
English
91% (98)
62% (61)
38% (37)
Spanish
9.3% (10)
80% (8)
20% (2)
Average financial well-being score, mean ± SD+
57.3 ± 12.6
53.9 ± 12.2
63.3 ± 11.1
<.001
Financial stress level, % (no.)
.007
Low financial stress (FWB ≥58)
41% (44)
48% (21)
52% (23)
High financial stress (FWB ≤49)
23% (25)
84% (21)
16% (4)
Any difficulty affording social needs, % (no.)
76% (82)
74% (61)
26% (21)
<.001
Any interest in social needs services, % (no.)
60% (65)
85% (55)
15% (10)
<.001
Mean score calculated among N = 99 individuals with complete responses to
the CFPB-FWBS components.
Comparing individuals with any interest in financial services with those
with no interest.
Percentages reflect row-wise proportions for each group.
Unadjusted Characteristics of Participants, Overall and by Interest in
Financial Services.Mean score calculated among N = 99 individuals with complete responses to
the CFPB-FWBS components.Comparing individuals with any interest in financial services with those
with no interest.Percentages reflect row-wise proportions for each group.Overall, 64% of individuals indicated interest in any financial services (Table 1). Interest was
similar by type of service, with interest in employment assistance (52%), savings
and budgeting help (49%), job training/adult education (49%), and financial
counseling (48%) being the most commonly endorsed (Figure 1). Interest in services was high
across demographic subgroups, with no statistically significant differences in
interest by participant race/ethnicity, age, or primary language (Table 1).
Figure 1.
Proportion of respondents (N = 108) interested in financial services, overall
and by service type.
Proportion of respondents (N = 108) interested in financial services, overall
and by service type.The CFPB-FWBS was calculated to examine the degree of financial stress for the 99
participants (92%) who completed all of the component questions. There was wide
variation in financial stress scores spanning nearly the whole range of the
CFPB-FWBS scale (25-82), with a mean score of 57.3 (95% CI 54.7-59.9) (Table 1). Eighty-four
percent of individuals identified as having high financial stress (CFPB-FWBS less
than or equal to 49) indicated interest in any financial services compared to 48%
with low financial stress (CFPB-FWBS greater than or equal to 58,
P < .01; Figure 2). There was a significantly higher interest in financial
services observed across service type between high versus low financial stress,
including employment assistance (83% vs 26%, P < .001), savings
and budgeting help (71% vs 35%, P < .05), job training/adult
education (67% vs 29%, P < .01), financial counseling (71% vs
24%, P < .001), tax preparation (67% vs 23%,
P < .01), debt consolidation (63% vs 23%,
P < .01) (Figure 2). There was no significant difference observed in the interest
in credit counseling or legal advice. Controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and
preferred language, we found a significantly higher likelihood of interest in any
financial services among individuals with high financial stress (aRR = 1.61 [95% CI
1.13-2.39]; Figure 3).
Similar significant associations were observed for specific services with the
exception of credit counseling and legal advice.
Figure 2.
Proportion of respondents interested in financial services by degree of
financial stress. Differences between groups were evaluated using
chi-squared tests of proportions. Sample sizes per group are provided in
parentheses below. Significant differences by degree of financial stress are
indicated above each category (*** indicates P < .001,
** indicates P < .01, * indicates
P < .05, NS indicates no statistical significance).
Figure 3.
Adjusted risk-ratios (aRR) from multivariate log-binomial regressions for the
increased likelihood of expressing interest in financial services overall
and by service type for individuals with high financial stress (CFPB-FWBS
score ≤49), compared to those with low financially stress (CFPB-FWBS score
≥58). Estimates control for respondent age, sex, race/ethnicity, and
preferred language. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval.
Abbreviations: aRR, adjusted risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; N, number
of observations.
Proportion of respondents interested in financial services by degree of
financial stress. Differences between groups were evaluated using
chi-squared tests of proportions. Sample sizes per group are provided in
parentheses below. Significant differences by degree of financial stress are
indicated above each category (*** indicates P < .001,
** indicates P < .01, * indicates
P < .05, NS indicates no statistical significance).Adjusted risk-ratios (aRR) from multivariate log-binomial regressions for the
increased likelihood of expressing interest in financial services overall
and by service type for individuals with high financial stress (CFPB-FWBS
score ≤49), compared to those with low financially stress (CFPB-FWBS score
≥58). Estimates control for respondent age, sex, race/ethnicity, and
preferred language. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval.Abbreviations: aRR, adjusted risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; N, number
of observations.The majority of participants indicated at least some difficulty affording social
needs (76%) (Table 1),
with most common difficulties including paying for rent/housing (60%), utilities
(51%), and food (50%). A smaller subset of participants indicated interest in
referral to social needs services (60%), with most commonly reported referral
interest to services to help with rent (34%), child supplies (25%), and food (23%).
Reported difficulty affording social needs was associated with interest in any
anti-poverty financial services (aRR = 2.24 [95% CI 1.33-4.43]) as well as interest
in any financial services (aRR = 2.15 [95% CI 1.46-3.55]) (Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Adjusted risk-ratios (aRR) from multivariate log-binomial regressions for the
increased likelihood of expressing interest in any clinic-based financial
services for individuals expressing difficulty affording any social needs or
interest in any social needs referral. Estimates control for respondent age,
sex, race/ethnicity, and preferred language. Error bars represent the 95%
confidence interval.
Abbreviations: aRR, adjusted risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; N, number
of observations.
Adjusted risk-ratios (aRR) from multivariate log-binomial regressions for the
increased likelihood of expressing interest in any clinic-based financial
services for individuals expressing difficulty affording any social needs or
interest in any social needs referral. Estimates control for respondent age,
sex, race/ethnicity, and preferred language. Error bars represent the 95%
confidence interval.Abbreviations: aRR, adjusted risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; N, number
of observations.
Discussion
In this study of interest in clinic-based financial services among low-income,
Medicaid-insured prenatal patients, we found that nearly two thirds of participants
were interested in connecting with financial services in the clinical setting.
Interest spanned the spectrum of financial capability services, with the highest
degree of interest in services for employment assistance, job training/adult
education, and savings/budgeting help. We additionally find that those with higher
degrees of financial stress were more likely to report interest in services.
However, nearly half of those with low financial stress were interested in financial
services, suggesting a broad range of interest. These findings suggest that
clinic-based financial services are desired by low-income, publicly insured prenatal
patients and there is an opportunity to support their health and well-being.There is growing interest in how clinically-integrated programs can address barriers
to access and improve continuity of care. Such interventions targeting poverty and
financial stress—termed Medical-Financial Partnerships (MFPs)—exist in pediatric and
adult primary care settings. This care model physically linking financial services
organizations with the health system has demonstrated improvement in children’s
overall subjective health status and increased family financial
well-being.[13-15] Moreover,
previous studies have found that such services are highly desirable by pediatric caregivers.
To our knowledge, similar models of care have not yet been explored in the
prenatal context. This study highlights that prenatal patients share a similarly
high degree of interest in clinically-integrated financial services. There is a
potential for such services to directly target upstream psychosocial stress during
pregnancy, particularly at a time when expectant individuals have frequent contact
with the health system.Integration of financial services into a prenatal clinic shares similar advantages of
other clinically-integrated resources such as Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLP).
Co-location of services aligns system and patient priorities, reducing
logistical barriers to connection and avoid waiting times to access
community-located services. Moreover, they may operate in a space of already
established trust between patients and the provider or clinic. Given the frequency
of prenatal care visits during pregnancy, there is opportunity for a similar cadence
of follow-up with financial services. Such services may help directly address
poverty and financial stress at a time and place convenient to patients.Our study finds that both difficulty in affording any social need and overall
interest in social needs services was significantly associated with interest in
financial services. Many prenatal clinics already integrate nonfinancial social
resources and care coordination programs such as those addressing food and housing
insecurity.[17,18] Clinics may already be identifying individuals who would be
interested in financial services. Coordination across services could help patients
simultaneously address more immediate social needs with interventions that build
resilience against their more upstream causes.
Limitations
Our study has limitations. First, these findings may not generalize beyond the
study’s low-income, Medicaid-insured prenatal clinic sample and may not reflect the
degree of interest and needs in other populations. Second, the smaller sample size
may decrease the precision of the estimated associations presented. The present
study gives way to future studies that assess prenatal patient interest in
clinic-based financial services with larger samples and in more varied patient
populations (eg, by geography, insurance status). Third, participants were surveyed
through November 2019, reflecting a period prior to the devastating economic
consequences of COVID-19, which has significantly increased the degree financial
stress experienced among low-income populations across the United States.[19-21] Further analyses are needed
to elucidate the current degree of financial stress and interest in financial
services in the prenatal population. Fourth, while we find that there is a high
level of interest, our study does not assess the implementation or impact of
clinic-based financial services in the prenatal setting. Prospective studies are
needed to assess the efficacy of clinically-integrated financial services in
addressing financial stress and related health outcomes for prenatal patients.
Conclusion
We find in a sample of low-income, Medicaid enrolled prenatal patients that there is
a high level of interest for health systems to actively address economic and social
determinants of health as a component of health care delivery. Integrating financial
services into prenatal health care appears to be an approach that a strong majority
of these low-income patients would be interested in to directly address poverty and
financial stress as drivers of adverse perinatal and life course health
outcomes.
Authors: Devan Jaganath; Karl Johnson; Megan M Tschudy; Kristin Topel; Brian Stackhouse; Barry S Solomon Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Rebecca Robillard; Mysa Saad; Jodi Edwards; Elizaveta Solomonova; Marie-Hélène Pennestri; Alexander Daros; Samuel Paul Louis Veissière; Lena Quilty; Karianne Dion; Ashley Nixon; Jennifer Phillips; Raj Bhatla; Edward Spilg; Roger Godbout; Bashour Yazji; Cynda Rushton; Wendy A Gifford; Mamta Gautam; Addo Boafo; Rick Swartz; Tetyana Kendzerska Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 2.692