Screening for Financial Hardship: Comparing Patient Survey Responses Using Two Different Screening Tools.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery organizations are increasingly screening patients for social risks using tools that vary in content and length. OBJECTIVES: To compare two screening tools both containing questions related to financial hardship. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of adult patients (n = 471) in three primary care clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Participants randomly assigned to self-complete either: (1) a screening tool developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) consisting of six questions on financial hardship (housing stability, housing quality, food security, transportation security, utilities security); or (2) social and behavioral risk measures recommended by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), including one question on financial hardship (financial strain). We compared patient acceptability of screening, positive screening rates for financial hardship, patient interest in assistance, and self-rated health. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of eligible/interested patients completed the relevant survey questions to be included in the study (N = 471/516). Patient acceptability was high for both tools, though more participants reported screening was appropriate when answering the CMS versus NAM questions (87% vs. 79%, p = 0.02). Of respondents completing the CMS tool, 57% (132/232) reported at least one type of financial hardship; on the NAM survey, 52% (125/239) reported financial hardship (p = 0.36). Nearly twice as many respondents indicated interest in assistance related to financial hardship after completing items on the CMS tool than on the NAM question (39% vs. 21%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported high acceptability of both social risk assessment tools. While rates of positive screens for financial hardship were similar across the two measures, more patients indicated interest in assistance after answering questions about financial hardship on the CMS tool. This might be because the screening questions on the CMS tool help patients to appreciate the types of assistance related to financial hardship that may be available after screening. Future research should assess the validity and comparative validity of individual measures and measure sets. Tool selection should be based on setting and population served, screening goals, and resources available.

Estimating the effect of timing of earned income tax credit refunds on perinatal outcomes: a quasi-experimental study of California births.

BACKGROUND: The largest poverty alleviation program in the US is the earned income tax credit (EITC), providing $60 billion to over 25 million families annually. While research has shown positive impacts of EITC receipt in pregnancy, there is little evidence on whether the timing of receipt may lead to differences in pregnancy outcomes. We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design, taking advantage of EITC tax disbursement each spring to examine whether trimester of receipt was associated with perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis of California linked birth certificate and hospital discharge records. The sample was drawn from the linked CA birth certificate and discharge records from 2007-2012 (N = 2,740,707). To predict eligibility, we created a probabilistic algorithm in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and applied it to the CA data. Primary outcome measures included preterm birth, small-for-gestational age (SGA), gestational diabetes, and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia. RESULTS: Eligibility for EITC receipt during the third trimester was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth compared with preconception. Eligibility for receipt in the preconception period resulted in improved gestational hypertension and SGA. CONCLUSION: This analysis offers a novel method to impute EITC eligibility using a probabilistic algorithm in a data set with richer sociodemographic information relative to the clinical and administrative data sets from which outcomes are drawn. These results could be used to determine the optimal intervention time point for future income supplementation policies. Future work should examine frequent income supplementation such as the minimum wage or basic income programs.

Patient Perspectives on Social Risk Screening and Documentation in a Dermatology Clinic.

Importance: Providing person-centered dermatologic care includes consideration of social risk factors, such as housing instability and unreliable transportation, that may affect clinical management. Patients' perspectives on social risk screening and documentation in dermatology clinics have not yet been evaluated. Objective: To understand patients' perspectives on social risk screening and documentation in a dermatology clinic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study used a survey and semistructured interviews and was conducted in a general dermatology clinic at a large urban public hospital. Patients at the clinic were eligible to complete the survey if they were 18 years or older; able to speak and read English, Spanish, or Cantonese; and comfortable using a computer tablet. Survey participants who preferred to use English were eligible for interviews. The survey included social risk screening questions, measures of acceptability, and questions on social risk factors associated with patient acceptability. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore attitudes and beliefs about social risk screening and documentation. Survey and interview findings were integrated during data analysis through development of themes and joint display. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 2 outcome measures of acceptability: appropriateness of screening in a dermatology clinic and comfort with documentation of social risk in the electronic health record (EHR). Results: A total of 135 participants (including 73 males [54.1%]) answered both measures of acceptability in the survey. Of these participants, 116 (85.9%) reported that social risk screening in their dermatology clinic was very or somewhat appropriate and 85 (63.0%) reported being completely or somewhat comfortable with having their social risks documented in the EHR. Themes that were developed from surveys and interviews were the (1) role of interpersonal factors in willingness to disclose social risks, (2) implications of institutional trust for willingness to disclose and comfort with documentation, and (3) relevance of screening in a dermatology clinic. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed that most participants found social risk screening to be appropriate in a dermatology clinic, although a smaller proportion of participants were comfortable with EHR documentation of their social risks. Optimizing patients' trust in their physicians and the medical system, while addressing privacy and discrimination concerns, may help facilitate disclosure of social risks.

Assessing Area-Level Deprivation as a Proxy for Individual-Level Social Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Concerns about the opportunity costs of social screening initiatives have led some healthcare organizations to consider using social deprivation indices (area-level social risks) as proxies for self-reported needs (individual-level social risks). Yet, little is known about the effectiveness of such substitutions across different populations. METHODS: This analysis explores how well the highest quartile (cold spot) of three different area-level social risk measures-the Social Deprivation Index, Area Deprivation Index, and Neighborhood Stress Score-corresponds with six individual-level social risks and three risk combinations among a national sample of Medicare Advantage members (N=77,503). Data were derived from area-level measures and cross-sectional survey data collected between October 2019 and February 2020. Agreement between individual and individual-level social risks, sensitivity values, specificity values, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values was calculated for all measures in summer/fall 2022. RESULTS: Agreement between area and individual-level social risks ranged from 53% to 77%. Sensitivity for each risk and risk category never exceeded 42%; specificity values ranged from 62% to 87%. Positive predictive values ranged from 8% to 70%, and negative predictive values ranged from 48% to 93%. There were modest performance discrepancies across area-level measures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide additional evidence that area-level deprivation indices may be inconsistent indicators of individual-level social risks, supporting policy efforts to promote individual-level social screening programs in healthcare settings.