Rollings Kimberly A, Noppert Grace A, Griggs Jennifer J, Ibrahim Andrew M, Clarke Philippa J
Health & Design Research Fellowship Program, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Social Environment and Health Program, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
JAMA Surg. 2024 Dec 1;159(12):1404-1413. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.4195.
Health care researchers, professionals, payers, and policymakers are increasingly relying on publicly available composite indices of area-level socioeconomic deprivation to address health equity. Implications of index selection, however, are not well understood.
To compare the performance of 2 frequently used deprivation indices using policy-relevant outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing 3 common surgical procedures.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study examined outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries (65 to 99 years old) undergoing 1 of 3 common surgical procedures (hip replacement, knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass grafting) between 2016 and 2019. Index discriminative performance was compared for beneficiaries residing in tracts with high- and low-deprivation levels (deciles) according to each index. Analyses were conducted between December 2022 and August 2023.
Tract-level deprivation was operationalized using 2020 releases of the area deprivation index (ADI) and the social vulnerability index (SVI). Binary outcomes were unplanned surgery, 30-day readmissions, and 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by each index, accounted for beneficiary and hospital characteristics.
A total of 2 433 603 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [6.1] years; 1 412 968 female beneficiaries [58.1%]; 24 165 Asian [1.0%], 158 582 Black [6.5%], and 2 182 052 White [89.7%]) were included in analyses. According to both indices, beneficiaries residing in high-deprivation tracts had significantly greater adjusted odds of all outcomes for all procedures when compared with beneficiaries living in low-deprivation tracts. However, compared to ADI, SVI resulted in higher adjusted odds ratios (adjusted odds ratios, 1.17-1.31 for SVI vs 1.09-1.23 for ADI), significantly larger outcome rate differences (outcome rate difference, 0.07%-5.17% for SVI vs outcome rate difference, 0.05%-2.44% for ADI; 95% CIs excluded 0), and greater effect sizes (Cohen d, 0.076-0.546 for SVI vs 0.044-0.304 for ADI) for beneficiaries residing in high- vs low-deprivation tracts.
In this cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries, SVI had significantly better discriminative performance-stratifying surgical outcomes over a wider range-than ADI for identifying and distinguishing between high- and low-deprivation tracts, as indexed by outcomes for common surgical procedures. Index selection requires careful consideration of index differences, index performance, and contextual factors surrounding use, especially when informing resource allocation and health care payment adjustment models to address health equity.
医疗保健研究人员、专业人员、支付方和政策制定者越来越依赖公开可用的地区层面社会经济剥夺综合指数来解决健康公平问题。然而,指数选择的影响尚未得到很好的理解。
使用政策相关结果比较两种常用剥夺指数在接受三种常见外科手术的医疗保险受益人中的表现。
设计、设置和参与者:这项横断面研究检查了2016年至2019年间接受三种常见外科手术(髋关节置换、膝关节置换或冠状动脉搭桥术)之一的医疗保险受益人(65至99岁)的结果。根据每个指数,比较了居住在高剥夺水平和低剥夺水平地区(十分位数)的受益人的指数区分性能。分析于2022年12月至2023年8月进行。
使用2020年发布的地区剥夺指数(ADI)和社会脆弱性指数(SVI)对地区层面的剥夺进行操作化。二元结果为非计划手术、30天再入院和30天死亡率。按每个指数分层的多变量逻辑回归模型考虑了受益人和医院的特征。
共有2433603名医疗保险受益人(平均[标准差]年龄,73.8[6.1]岁;1412968名女性受益人[58.1%];24165名亚洲人[1.0%],158582名黑人[6.5%],2182052名白人[89.7%])纳入分析。根据这两个指数,与居住在低剥夺地区的受益人相比,居住在高剥夺地区的受益人在所有手术的所有结果方面的调整后优势明显更大。然而,与ADI相比,SVI导致更高的调整后优势比(SVI的调整后优势比为1.17 - 1.31,ADI为1.