Dataset Information

Income disparity and utilization of cardiovascular preventive care services among U.S. adults

ABSTRACT: Highlights • Low income individuals are less likely to receive smoking cessation counseling.• Low income individuals are less likely to have their blood pressure checked.• Low income individuals are less likely to be receive exercise counseling.• Low income individuals are less likely to receive dietary counseling.• Low income individuals are less likely to have their cholesterol levels checked.

Objective

: Associations between income disparity and utilization of cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care services, such as receipt of lifestyle advice and screening for CVD risk factors in populations with and without CVD, are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate associations between income and utilization of CVD-preventive services among U.S. adults.

Methods

: We included adults ≥18 years with and without CVD from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We categorized participants as high-income (>400% of federal poverty level [FPL]), middle income (200–400% of FPL), low-income (125–200% of FPL) and very low (VL)-income (<125% of FPL). We used logistic regression to compare the likelihood of receiving CVD-preventive services by income strata, adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities.

Results

: The study included 185,081 participants (representing 194.6 million U.S. adults) without CVD, and 32,862 participants (representing 37 million U.S. adults) with CVD. VL-income adults without CVD were less likely than high-income adults to have blood pressure measured within past 2 years [odds ratio [OR] 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.45)] or cholesterol levels checked within past 5 years [0.36 (0.33–0.38)] or receive counseling about diet modifications [0.77 (0.74–0.81)], exercise [0.81 (0.77–0.85)], or smoking cessation [0.71 (0.63–0.79)] within past year. VL-income adults with CVD were also less likely to have blood pressure [0.32 (0.22–0.46)] or cholesterol [0.33 (0.26–0.42)] checked and receive counseling about exercise [0.84 (0.76–0.93)] or smoking cessation [0.78 (0.61–0.99)]. Additional subgroup analyses restricted to participants who had seen a healthcare provider within the preceding 12 months, as well as secondary analyses stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, showed similar disparities between high-income and VL-income participants.

Conclusions

: VL-income adults were less likely to be screened for CVD risk factors or receive CVD-prevention counseling than high-income adults, regardless of CVD status. More work must be done to reduce disparities in access to and utilization of CVD-preventive services among adults in different income groups. Graphical abstract Image, graphical abstract

SUBMITTER: Shahu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593567 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Advantage (MA) program has doubled in size during the past decade, and enrollment among adults with low income has increased rapidly. Such adults face significant barriers in accessing care, leading to poorer health outcomes. Therefore, understanding how health care access, preventive care, and care affordability compare for adults with low income who are enrolled in MA vs traditional Medicare (TM) is critically important.ObjectiveTo compare measures of health care access, preventive care use, and affordability of care between adults with low income who are enrolled in MA vs TM.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative cross-sectional study used the 2019 National Health Interview Survey to compare 2622 adults aged 65 years or older with low income who were enrolled in MA vs TM. Data were analyzed from December 5, 2021, to April 10, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of health care access, preventive care use, and health care affordability.ResultsThe study cohort included 2622 adults aged 65 years or older with low income, resulting in a weighted cohort of 14 222 243 adults, of whom 5 641 049 (39.7%) were enrolled in MA and 8 581 194 (60.3%) in TM. The overall age of the cohort was 74.6 years (95% CI, 74.3-74.9). Between the MA and TM groups, the mean age (74.5 years [95% CI, 74.1-75.0] vs 74.7 years [95% CI, 74.3-75.1]; P = .63) and sex distribution (63.6% women [95% CI, 59.8%-67.3%] vs 60.4% women [95% CI, 57.4%-63.3%]; P = .17) were similar, but adults with low income in MA were more likely to be non-Hispanic Asian (7.6% [95% CI, 5.0%-10.1%] vs 3.8% [95% CI, 2.4%-5.3%]; P = .01) or Hispanic (18.1% [95% CI, 14.3%-21.9%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 7.2%-11.7%]; P < .001). Adults with low income in MA compared with those enrolled in TM were more likely to have a usual place of care (97.7% vs 94.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.37 [95% CI, 1.38-4.07]), but similarly likely to have a recent physician visit (95.5% vs 93.5%; aOR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.88-2.17]) and to delay medical care (5.3% vs 5.7%; aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.56-1.24]) or not seek medical care (5.6% vs 5.9%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.56-1.30]) due to costs. For preventive care measures, adults with low income in MA were more likely than those in TM to have undergone a recent cholesterol screening (98.7% vs 96.6%; aOR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.27-5.22]). However, there were no significant differences between the MA and TM groups in the likelihood of diabetes screening (90.6% vs 87.6%; aOR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.87-1.66]), blood pressure screening (96.8% vs 95.2%; aOR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.84-2.23]), or receipt of an influenza vaccination in the past year (66.3% vs 63.8%; aOR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.93-1.45]). Adults with low income in MA or TM were similarly likely to be concerned about paying medical bills (47.3% vs 44.2%; aOR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.88-1.35]) or have problems paying medical bills (17.1% vs 17.2%; aOR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]) and were also similarly likely to delay filling prescriptions (7.4% vs 6.2%; aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.78-1.92]) or to not fill prescriptions (7.8% vs 7.4%; aOR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.70-1.45]) due to costs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of Medicare beneficiaries with low income, key measures of health care access, preventive care use, and health care affordability generally did not differ between those enrolled in MA vs TM.