How Ready Are States to Monitor Healthy People 2020 Morbidity and Mortality Objectives By Socioeconomic Status (SES) Measures? Summary of the CSTE Health Disparities 2015 Assessment

Tuesday, June 21, 2016: 2:50 PM
Tubughnenq' 5, Dena'ina Convention Center
James L. Hadler , Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT
Duc Vugia , California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, CA
Jessica Wurster , CSTE, Atlanta, GA
Lisa Ferland , Public Health Practice, LLC, Akersberga, Sweden
BACKGROUND:  Healthy People (HP) 2020 has a goal to eliminate health disparities, including those by SES. A HP 2020 public health infrastructure objective is to increase the percentage of HP 2020 objectives for which national data are available by SES. Many HP 2020 objectives currently without SES data are for reportable diseases, malignancies and birth and death data. National data for these could be generated if states either collect individual SES or use area-based SES measures generated by geocoding case residential address and linking it to census tract SES. To determine state-level readiness to monitor HP 2020 reportable disease conditions by SES status, the CSTE Health Disparities Subcommittee developed an assessment. 

METHODS:  A consultant and Subcommittee members developed the assessment. Nationally notifiable conditions were cross-mapped to the conditions HP 2020 set objectives. The assessment asked about readiness and barriers to collecting individual SES status and to geocoding case addresses and whether linking of geocoded information to census tract SES measures was being done. The assessment was distributed to all State Epidemiologists in June 2015. Data collection was closed August 31. 

RESULTS:  Eighty-eight percent (45/51) of states, including Washington, D.C., responded. Except for birth data (18 states), few (1-7 states) collected individual SES on any given condition. The majority (26) indicated a plan to conduct routine geocoding and most were doing it: 88% geocoded the six cancers with HP 2020 objectives, 50-77% geocoded infectious diseases and elevated blood lead, and 73% birth and death data. Among those conducting routine geocoding, 24 states reported linking geocodes to census tract data for malignancies, 8 for infectious diseases, and 14 for vital statistics. Eighteen (69%) of 26 states with a routine geocoding plan would be willing to send census tract-level SES data to CDC. Barriers among these 26 to routinely geocoding reportable infectious diseases were lack of funding (4-8 states), not a priority (4-7), and lack of expertise (2-7).

CONCLUSIONS:  Few states routinely collect individual SES information except via birth certificates. However, the majority of states are either planning to or are capable of and already doing some geocoding of case address data and are willing to send linked census tract data to CDC. Given this, a nationally coordinated effort could be made to standardize linkage of geocoded to census tract SES data in a representative sample of states, send that data to CDC and generate national-level surveillance data by SES.