Methodological Approaches in Identifying an at-Risk Population during Lead in Water Crisis, Flint, Michigan, 2016

Wednesday, June 22, 2016: 3:10 PM
Tikahtnu B, Dena'ina Convention Center
Timothy A Dignam , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Martha Stanbury , Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, MI
Robert Scott , Michigan Department of Community Health, lansing, MI
Rish Vaidyanathan , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, atlanta, GA
Melissa Smith , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, atlanta, GA
Corinne Miller , Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, MI
Brian Kaplan , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, atlanta, GA
Stevan Bullard , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, atlanta, GA
Junaid Maqsood , Michigan Department of Community Health, lansing, ME
Ellen Yard , CDC/National Center for Environmental Health, Chamblee, GA
Xiaoting Qin , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, atlanta, GA
BACKGROUND: A change in water source servicing Flint, Michigan from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department to the Flint River occurred during April 2014 – October 2015. This change resulted in an increase in the corrosivity of the water, leading to lead leaching from pipes in the city’s water infrastructure and household plumbing, ultimately entering residents’ drinking water. To identify and enumerate children potentially exposed to lead contaminated water, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a cross-sectional dataset of at-risk child population from various existing data sources.

METHODS: We accessed data from the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR) and the Michigan Community Health Automated Medicaid Processing System (CHAMPS). The MCIR is expected to include all children who were vaccinated, as required by Michigan law. A large proportion of children in Flint are enrolled in CHAMPS. The datasets included records for children born on or after January 1, 2010 to present, who resided in ZIP codes served by the Flint Water System (FWS). We first de-duplicated and merged records using unique identifiers and probabilistic matching to identify children at risk. Then, we selected the most recent address for enrollees and geo-coded them to obtain highly resolved spatial locations (latitude and longitude coordinates) of children <6 years of age. We estimated the spatial extent of the FWS using geocoded addresses listed in the active water utility database plus locations in close proximity to water service lines. Using GIS, we enumerated children who resided in the FWS area. A lower population range was calculated by subtracting children in the CHAMPS database and FWS area but not in MCIR. An upper population range was calculated by adding children in CHAMPS without a current address in the FWS area. For quality control, our estimates were compared to U.S. Census estimates.

RESULTS: We identified 9,622 (range: 7,863 – 11,153) children <6 years of age who resided in the FWS area and are considered to be at risk for exposure to water lead contamination.

CONCLUSIONS: Enumerating populations that fall within a non-standard boundary like a water distribution system can require careful handling and merging of disparate databases and involve tasks such as managing inconsistent variable formats and misspellings. Other challenges include defining water service boundaries, population mobility, and temporal limitations. This approach required a collaborative mix of geospatial, programming, and epidemiologic expertise between MDHHS and CDC.