Commonwealth shows ‘stark’ care divide Health IT, innovation could help close gap

David Blumenthal, MD, president of the Commonwealth FundDavid Blumenthal, MD, president of the Commonwealth Fund

Access to affordable health care and quality of care vary greatly for low-income people based on where they live, according to a new Commonwealth Fundscorecard.
The scorecard provides the first state-by-state comparison of the healthcare experiences of the 39 percent of Americans with incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $47,000 a year for a family of four and $23,000 for an individual. Low-income people account for at least 25 percent of total state populations, and as much as nearly half (47 percent) in some states — including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and New Mexico.
The report also compares the healthcare experiences of those with low incomes to those with higher incomes — over 400 percent of poverty, or $94,000 for a family of four — and finds striking disparities by income within each state. Yet the wide differences by geography often put higher-income as well as low-income families at risk. The report finds that higher-income people living in states that lag far behind are often worse off than low-income people in states that rank at the very top of the scorecard. For example, low-income elderly Medicarebeneficiaries in Connecticut and Wisconsin are less likely to receive high-risk medications than are higher-income elderly in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
The stark differences in healthcare access, quality, and outcomes detailed in the report add up to substantial loss of lives and missed opportunities to improve health and quality of care. According to the Scorecard, if all states could reach benchmarks set by the leading states for their more advantaged populations:
  • An estimated 86,000 fewer people would die prematurely each year.
  • Seven hundred and fifty thousand fewer low-income Medicare beneficiaries would be prescribed potentially dangerous medications.
  • Tens of millions of adults and children would receive needed preventive care like vaccines, check-ups and cancer screenings.
  • Nearly 9 million fewer low-income adults under age 65 would lose six or more teeth because of tooth decay, infection or gum disease.
  • Thirty million more low-income adults and children would have health insurance coverage, reducing the number of uninsured by half.
Cathy Schoen“We found repeated evidence that we are often two Americas, divided by income and geography when it comes to opportunities to lead long and healthy lives. These are more than numbers,” said Cathy Schoen, Commonwealth Fund senior vice president and lead author of the report. “We are talking about people’s lives, health, and well-being. Our hope is that state policymakers and healthcare leaders use these data to target resources to improve access, care, and the health of residents with below-average incomes.”
David Blumenthal, MD, former national coordinator for health information technology, who is now president of the Commonwealth Fund, sounded an optimistic note.
Improvement is clearly possible, he says, citing expanding healthcare coverage and innovation.
“The Scorecard’s startling findings show us where our bright and weak spots are when it comes to providing health care to millions of Americans living on modest or low incomes,” Blumenthal said in announcing the scorecard’s findings. “And the timing is important. We are at an unprecedented moment in the history of our nation. We have the potential to raise the bar, unite the country, and realize the promise of a more equal opportunity to thrive by expanding health care coverage and innovating to find the most effective ways to deliver high-quality, safe care for everyone.”
The report findings point to the need to strengthen primary care to ensure timely access, reduce reliance on emergency rooms, and improve care for those with chronic disease. The scorecard finding that those living in low-income communities often fare worse points to the need for targeted efforts focused on “hot spots,” or communities with very high rates of hospital or emergency room use, to act early, prevent complications and improve population health.
More gaps
The report, “Health Care in the Two Americas: Findings from the Scorecard on State Health System Performance for Low-Income Populations,” and an online interactive map rank states on 30 indicators covering issues such as access to affordable health care, preventive care and quality, potentially avoidable hospital use and health outcomes. The report also examines how well the top-performing state in each category does for its high-income residents and sets that as a benchmark in order to assess the potential if all states could do as well.
The report finds substantial variation in health care and health outcomes for low-income people – a two- to five-fold difference. While there was room for every state to improve, states in the Upper Midwest, Northeast, and Hawaii performed best, while Southern and South Central states often lagged.
Some findings of wide geographic disparities and gaps in care include:
  • The percentage of uninsured low-income adults ranged from a low of 12 percent in Massachusetts to a high of 55 percent in Texas.
  • Only 32 percent of low-income adults ages 50 or older received recommended preventive care, such as cancer screenings and vaccines, ranging from 26 percent or less in Idaho, Oklahoma and California, to 42 percent in Massachusetts, the top-ranked state for this indicator.
  • In eight states, 40 percent or more of Medicare beneficiaries received medications considered high-risk for the elderly – rates more than double that of states with safer prescribing.
  • Asthma-related hospitalizations among children from low-income communities in New York were eight times higher than in Oregon, the state with the lowest rate. (477 per 100,000 in New York, compared to 56 per 100,000 in Oregon.)
  • At least one of four low-income adults under 65 in West Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky lost six or more teeth due to decay or disease, compared to less than 10 percent in Connecticut, Hawaii and Utah, the states with the lowest rates.
By timmreardon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s