Original Article
FREE: The Importance of Health and Social Services Spending to Health Outcomes in Texas, 2010–2016
Abstract
Objectives: Public health and social services spending have been shown to improve health outcomes at the county level, although there are significant state and regional variations in such spending. Texas offers an important opportunity for examining nuances in the patterns of association between local government health and social services spending and population health outcomes. The primary objectives of this study were to describe local investments in education, health, and social services at the county-area level for all of Texas from 2002 through 2012 and to examine how changes in local investment over time were associated with changes in health outcomes.Methods: We used two large secondary data sources for this study. First, US Census Bureau data were used to measure annual spending by all local governments on public hospitals, community health care and public health, and >1 dozen social services. Second, County Health Rankings & Roadmaps data measured county health outcomes. We performed regression models to examine the association between increases in local government spending and a county’s health outcomes ranking 4 years later. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models accounted for mean spending in each category, county health factors ranking, and county and state random effects.
Results: Local governments in Texas spent an average of $4717 per capita across all health and social services. Although spending was relatively consistent across 2002–2012, there was notable variation in spending across counties and services. Regression models found that changes in four spending categories were associated with significant improvements in health outcomes: fire and ambulance, community health care and public health, housing and community development, and libraries. For each, an additional one-time investment of $15 per capita was associated with a 1-spot improvement in statewide county health rankings within 4 years.
Conclusions: Existing evidence regarding the association between social services spending and health outcomes may not yield sufficiently granular data for policy makers within a single state. Investments in certain social services in Texas were associated with improvements in health outcomes, as measured by improvements in the County Health Rankings, in the years subsequent to spending increases. Similar analyses in other states and regions may yield actionable avenues for policy makers to improve population health.
Full Article
Having trouble viewing the article content below? Click here to open it directly.
Images
References
1. Martin AB, Hartman M, Washington B, et al. National health spending: faster growth in 2015 as coverage expands and utilization increases. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017;36:166-176.
2. Dieleman JL, Baral R, Birger M, et al. US spending on personal health care and public health, 1996-2013. JAMA 2016;316:2627-2646.
3. Anderson GF, Hurst J, Hussey PS, et al. Health spending and outcomes: trends in OECD countries, 1960-1998. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000;19:150-157.
4. Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018;319:1024-1039.
5. Anderson GF, Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, et al. It’ the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:89-105.
6. Eisner MD, Blanc PD, Omachi TA, et al. Socioeconomic status, race and COPD health outcomes. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011;65:26-34.
7. Guralnik JM, Leveille SG. Race, ethnicity, and health outcomes-unraveling the mediating role of socioeconomic status. Am J Public Health 1997;87:728-730.
8. Metzler M. Social determinants of health: what, how, why, and now. Prev Chronic Dis 2007;4:A85.
9. Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, et al. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 2008;372:1661-1669.
10. Eisenberg JN, Desai MA, Levy K, et al. Environmental determinants of infectious disease: a framework for tracking causal links and guiding public health research. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115:1216-1223.
11. Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet 2005;365:1099-1104.
12. Courtemanche C, Soneji S, Tchernis R. Modeling area-level health rankings. Health Serv Res 2015;50:1413-1431.
13. Bradley EH, Canavan M, Rogan E, et al. Variation in health outcomes: the role of spending on social services, public health, and health care, 2000-09. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35:760-768.
14. Brown TT. Returns on investment in California county departments of public health. Am J Public Health 2016;106:1477-1482.
15. Brown TT, Martinez-Gutierrez MS, Navab B. The impact of changes in county public health expenditures on general health in the population. Health Econ Policy Law 2014;9:251-269.
16. Brown TT. How effective are public health departments at preventing mortality? Econ Hum Biol 2014;13:34-45.
17. Mays GP, Smith SA. Evidence links increases in public health spending to declines in preventable deaths. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30:1585-1593.
18. Corso PS, Ingels JB, Taylor N, et al. Linking costs to health outcomes for allocating scarce public health resources. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2014;2:1128.
19. Singh SR. Public health spending and population health: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2014;47:634-640.
20. McCullough JM, Leider JP. Associations between county wealth, health and social services spending, and health outcomes. Am J Prev Med 2017;53:592-598.
21. McCullough JM, Leider JP. Government spending in health and nonhealth sectors associated with improvement in county health rankings. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35:2037-2043.
22. Leider JP, Alfonso N, Resnick B, et al. Assessing the value of 40 years of local public expenditures on health. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018;37:560-569.
23. Kliesen KL. A fiscal devolution: can state and local governments measure up? Regional Econ 1995;:4-9.
24. United Health Foundation. America' Health Rankings 2017. https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2017-annual-report. Accessed November 18, 2018.
25. Government Finance and Employment Classification Manual. Washington, DC:US Census Bureau;2006.
26. Population Health Institute. County Health Ranking & Roadmaps. 2016. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org. Accessed January 22, 2016.
27. Table 3.15.3. Real Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment by Function, Quantity Indexes. Washington, DC:US Bureau of Economic Analysis;2013.
28. Heywood F. The health outcomes of housing adaptations. Disabil Soc 2004;19:129-143.
29. Taylor L. Housing and health: an overview of the literature. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20180313.396577/full. Published Accessed June 7, 2018. November 18, 2018.
30. Thomson H, Petticrew M, Morrison D. Health effects of housing improvement: systematic review of intervention studies. BMJ 2001;323:187-190.
31. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Health care innovation awards round two: City of Mesa Fire and Medical Department Community Care Response Initiative. https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Health-Care-Innovation-Awards-Round-Two/Arizona.html. Accessed June 20, 2018.
