Original Article
Sex Differences in the Association between Local Government Spending and Mortality: Evidence from Tennessee
Abstract
Objectives: A growing body of research has demonstrated the effect of local government spending on health outcomes; however, the effect of spending on different demographic groups is unclear. We combined national and local data to examine the impact of public spending on mortality rates in Tennessee.Methods: Within-between random effects models to examine the relation between county-level spending and mortality rates.
Results: We found a significant association between per capita library and kindergarten through grade 12 education spending and mortality outcomes. We also found sex differences in the effects of per capita public health spending and highway spending.
Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that local government spending plays a role in addressing and improving population health and suggests that public spending can have differential effects within a population.
This content is limited to qualifying members.
Existing members, please login first
If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.
Purchase only this article ($25)
Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.
Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)
Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.
Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)
Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.
References
1. McGovern L. The relative contribution of multiple determinants to health. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20140821.404487/full. Published August 21, 2014. Accessed December 3, 2019.
2. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, et al. Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health (Oxf) 2008;30:103-109.
3. Bradley EH, Elkins BR, Herrin J, et al. Health and social services expenditures: associations with health outcomes. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:826-831.
4. Rubin J, Taylor J, Krapels J, et al. Are better health outcomes related to social expenditure? A cross-national empirical analysis of social expenditure and population health measures. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1252.html. Published 2016. Accessed December 3, 2019.
5. 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 2016;35:760-768.
6. Ronzio CR, Pamuk E, Squires GD. The politics of preventable deaths: local spending, income inequality, and premature mortality in US cities. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:175-179.
7. McCullough J M, Leider JP. Government spending in health and nonhealth sectors associated with improvement in county health rankings. Health Aff 2016;35:2037-2043.
8. Brown TT, Martinez-Gutierrez MS, Navab B. The impact of changes in county public health expenditures on general health in the population. Heal Econ Policy Law 2014;9:251-269.
9. Dunn JR, Burgess B, Ross NA. Income distribution, public services expenditures, and all cause mortality in US states. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:768-774.
10. Marton J, Sung J, Honore P. Does More Public Health Spending Buy Better Health? Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol 2015. DOI: 10.1177/2333392815580750.
11. Dwyer-Lindgren L, Bertozzi-Villa A, Stubbs RW, et al. Inequalities in life expectancy among US counties, 1980 to 2014: temporal trends and key drivers. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:1003-1011.
12. Stephens J, Artiga S, Paradise J. Health coverage and care in the south in 2014 and beyond. https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/health-coverage-and-care-in-the-south-in-2014-and-beyond. Published June 19, 2014. Accessed December 3, 2019.
13. Urban Institute. State and local expenditures. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/state-and-local-expenditures. Accessed December 3, 2019.
14. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. Difficulties with regression analyses of age-adjusted rates. Biometrics 1984;40:437-443.
15. Schunck R. Within and between estimates in random-effects models: advantages and drawbacks of correlated random effects and hybrid models. Stata J 2013;13:65-76.
16. Dieleman JL, Templin T. Random-effects, fixed-effects and the within-between specification for clustered data in observational health studies: a simulation study. PLoS One 2014;9:e110257.
17. Mundlak Y. On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 1978;46:69-85.
18. Bell A, Jones K. Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Polit Sci Res Methods 2015;3:133-153.
19. Bartels BL. Beyond "fixed versus random effects": a framework for improving substantive and statistical analysis of panel, time-series cross-sectional, and multilevel data. https://home.gwu.edu/~bartels/cluster.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2019.
20. Bell A, Jones K, Fairbrother M. Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.’s dangerous practice. Qual Quant 2018;52:2031-2036.
21. Avendano M, Kawachi I. Why do Americans have shorter life expectancy and worse health than do people in other high-income countries? Ann Rev Public Health 2014;35:307-325.
22. Bonnie RJ, Stratton K, Wallace RB , eds. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation. Washington DC:National Academies Press;2007.
23. Singh-Manoux A, Guéguen A, Ferrie J, et al. Gender differences in the association between morbidity and mortality among middle-aged men and women. Am J Public Health 2008;98:2251-2257.
24. Baker DP, Leon J, Smith Greenaway EG, et al. The education effect on population health: a reassessment. Popul Dev Rev 2011;37:307-332.
25. McMahon WW. Education finance policy: financing the nonmarket and social benefits. J Educ Financ 2006;32:264-284.
26. Riddell WC. The impact of education on economic and social outcomes: an overview of recent advances in economics. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bac0/aae64a3e4cfc6e0ad65a88b7c3b5c136662e.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed December 3, 2019.
27. Institute of Museum and Library Services. Public Libraries in the United States Fiscal Year 2014. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/publications/documents/plsfy2014.pdf. Published August 2017. Accessed December 3, 2019.
28. Morgan AU, Dupuis R, D'Alonzo B, et al. Beyond books: public libraries as partners for population health. Health Aff 2016;35:2030-2036.
29. Whiteman ED, Dupuis R, Morgan AU, et al. Public libraries as partners for health. Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:E64.
30. Robertson LM, Douglas F, Ludbrook A, et al. What works with men? A systematic review of health promoting interventions targeting men. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:141.
31. Choy J, Kashanian JA, Sharma V, et al. The men’ health center: disparities in gender specific health services among the top 50 "best hospitals" in America. Asian J Urol 2015;2:170-174.
3
2. Case A, Paxson C. Sex differences in morbidity and mortality. Demography 2005;42:189-214.
