Dataset Information

Eviction Moratoria Expiration and COVID-19 Infection Risk Across Strata of Health and Socioeconomic Status in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Housing insecurity induced by evictions may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19.

Objective

To estimate the association of lifting state-level eviction moratoria, which increased housing insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study included individuals with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage who lived in a state that issued an eviction moratorium and were diagnosed with COVID-19 as well as a control group comprising an equal number of randomly selected individuals in these states who were not diagnosed with COVID-19. Data were collected from OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a database of deidentified administrative claims. The study used a difference-in-differences analysis among states that implemented an eviction moratorium between March 13, 2020, and September 4, 2020.

Exposures

Time since state-level eviction moratoria were lifted.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome measure was a binary variable indicating whether an individual was diagnosed with COVID-19 for the first time in a given week with International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code U07.1. The study analyzed changes in COVID-19 diagnosis before vs after a state lifted its moratorium compared with changes in states that did not lift it. For sensitivity analyses, models were reestimated on a 2% random sample of all individuals in the claims database during this period in these states.

Results

The cohort consisted of 509 694 individuals (254 847 [50.0%] diagnosed with COVID-19; mean [SD] age, 47.0 [23.6] years; 239 056 [53.3%] men). During the study period, 43 states and the District of Columbia implemented an eviction moratorium and 7 did not. Among the states that implemented a moratorium, 26 (59.1%) lifted their moratorium before the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued their national moratorium, while 18 (40.1%) maintained theirs. In a Cox difference-in-differences regression model, individuals living in a state that lifted its eviction moratorium experienced higher hazards of a COVID-19 diagnosis beginning 5 weeks after the moratorium was lifted (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.76; P = .004), reaching an HR of 1.83 (95% CI, 1.36-2.46; P < .001) 12 weeks after. Hazards increased in magnitude among individuals with preexisting comorbidities and those living in nonaffluent and rent-burdened areas. Individuals with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 3 or greater had an HR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.67-3.36; P < .001) at the end of the study period. Those living in nonaffluent areas had an HR of 2.14 (95% CI, 1.51-3.05; P < .001), while those living in areas with a high rent burden had an HR of 2.31 (95% CI, 1.64-3.26; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this difference-in-differences analysis suggest that eviction-led housing insecurity may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Sandoval-Olascoaga S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePrior studies on the association between fine particulate matter with diameters 2.5 μm or smaller (PM2.5) and probability of death have not applied multilevel analysis disaggregating data for US census tract, states, and counties, nor tested its interaction by socioeconomic status (SES). Such an approach could provide a more refined identification and targeting of populations exposed to increased risk from PM2.5.ObjectiveTo assess the association between PM2.5 and age-specific mortality risk (ASMR) using disaggregated data at the census tract level and evaluate such association according to census tract SES.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide cross-sectional study used a linkage of 3 different data sets. ASMR for the period of 2010 to 2015 was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistic, SES data covering a period from 2006 to 2016 came from the American Community Survey, and mean PM2.5 exposure levels from 2010 to 2015 were derived from well-validated atmospheric chemistry and machine learning models. Data were analyzed in April 2021.ExposuresThe main exploratory variable was mean census tract-level long-term exposure to PM2.5 from 2010 to 2015.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was census tract-level ASMR. Multilevel models were used to quantify the geographic variation in ASMR at levels of census tract, county, and state. Additional analysis explored the interaction of SES in the association of ASMR with PM2.5 exposure.ResultsData from 67 148 census tracts nested in 3087 counties and 50 states were analyzed. The association between exposure to PM2.5 and ASMR varied substantially across census tracts. The magnitude of such association also varied across age groups, being higher among adults and older adults. Census tracts accounted for most of the total geographic variation in mortality risk (range, 77.0%-94.2%). ASMR was higher in deciles with greater PM2.5 concentration. For example, ASMR for age 75 to 84 years was 54.6 per 1000 population higher in the decile with the second-highest PM2.5 concentration than in the decile with the lowest PM2.5 concentration. The ASMR, PM2.5 concentrations, and magnitude of the association between both were higher in the census tracts with the lowest SES.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that census tracts with lower SES presented higher PM2.5 concentrations. ASMR and air pollution varied substantially across census tracts. There was an association between air pollution and ASMR across all age groups in the United States. These findings suggest that equitable public policies aimed at improving air quality are needed and important to increase life expectancy.

Project description:BackgroundThe spread of COVID-19 has highlighted the long-standing health inequalities across the U.S. as neighborhoods with fewer resources were associated with higher rates of COVID-19 transmission. Although the stay-at-home order was one of the most effective methods to contain its spread, residents in lower-income neighborhoods faced barriers to practicing social distancing. We aimed to quantify the differential impact of stay-at-home policy on COVID-19 transmission and residents' mobility across neighborhoods of different levels of socioeconomic disadvantage.MethodsThis was a comparative interrupted time-series analysis at the county level. We included 2087 counties from 38 states which both implemented and lifted the state-wide stay-at-home order. Every county was assigned to one of four equally-sized groups based on its levels of disadvantage, represented by the Area Deprivation Index. Prevalence of COVID-19 was calculated by dividing the daily number of cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases by the number of residents from the 2010 Census. We used the Social Distancing Index (SDI), derived from the COVID-19 Impact Analysis Platform, to measure the mobility. For the evaluation of implementation, the observation started from Mar 1st 2020 to 1 day before lifting; and, for lifting, it ranged from 1 day after implementation to Jul 5th 2020. We calculated a comparative change of daily trends in COVID-19 prevalence and Social Distancing Index between counties with three highest disadvantage levels and those with the least level before and after the implementation and lifting of the stay-at-home order, separately.ResultsOn both stay-at-home implementation and lifting dates, COVID-19 prevalence was much higher among counties with the highest or lowest disadvantage level, while mobility decreased as the disadvantage level increased. Mobility of the most disadvantaged counties was least impacted by stay-at-home implementation and relaxation compared to counties with the most resources; however, disadvantaged counties experienced the largest relative increase in COVID-19 infection after both stay-at-home implementation and relaxation.ConclusionsNeighborhoods with varying levels of socioeconomic disadvantage reacted differently to the implementation and relaxation of COVID-19 mitigation policies. Policymakers should consider investing more resources in disadvantaged counties as the pandemic may not stop until most neighborhoods have it under control.