A Secret to Better Health Care

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/opinion/health-care-social-services.html

Version 0 of 1.

Health care is at the center of the national policy conversation, and with the 2020 presidential election now in full swing, that is where it will probably remain. But for all the talk about how to increase access and reduce costs, we’re missing a critical piece of the puzzle: the inverse relationship between health care costs and spending on social programs.

One reason the United States spends more on health care than any other nation — more than 17 percent of gross domestic product, compared with an average of 9 percent for other advanced economies — is that we spend far less on social services like food stamps, free school lunches and public housing.

If our spending on social programs were more in line with other developed countries, our health care costs would fall. That means that as policymakers evaluate a social program, they should weigh not only its direct and second-order benefits — from reducing crime and recidivism to increasing productivity — but also its effect on lowering federal health care costs.

These safety net programs can lower health care costs by strengthening what medical professionals call the “social determinants of health”: the environment in which people are born, grow, live and work. Effective social programs provide access to good nutrition, clean and safe shelter and a subsistence income, which are critical to avoiding disease. They help food-insecure children receive nutrient-dense meals rather than empty calories, and families with incomes below the poverty line to live in sanitary environments free of serious health risks.

Especially important are programs that ameliorate poor housing conditions and prevent disease, including lead abatement, control of mold and dampness and heating-system repairs. Consider a real-life example.

Days after an elderly patient was treated for heart failure at Mount Sinai Hospital and returned home, the elevator in his apartment building broke down. Lacking the ability to climb stairs, he became a prisoner in his own home, unable to go out for a walk, shop for fresh food and visit his doctors for follow-up care.

A social service worker took up his case, and the elevator was repaired. His substandard housing was literally a threat to his health; the intervention of the social worker may have saved his life — and certainly saved him from a possible relapse and expensive hospital care.

Two programs — one in Chicago, the other in Los Angeles — show the multidimensional benefits of social spending. The Chicago program supplemented federal housing subsidies to help patients with chronic health problems afford stable housing. It reduced health care costs in the University of Illinois hospital system for participating patients by roughly 18 percent. And once in stable housing, beneficiaries can better pursue public benefits and job opportunities.

The Los Angeles program showed even greater cost savings, according to a study by the nonpartisan RAND Corporation. After receiving housing assistance, beneficiaries’ costs to the public health system plummeted. Inpatient services fell by 75 percent. Over all, the study found that, even accounting for the increased housing costs, recipients’ total social service and health care costs fell by 20 percent. And beneficiaries showed signs of reduced involvement in crime and improved mental health.

All of this is intuitive and supported by reams of data. But the United States continues to spend a relative pittance on such programs. Housing programs, including rental assistance, public housing and homeless-assistance grants, account for one-quarter of 1 percent of G.D.P. Nutrition programs, such as food stamps and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, amount to one-half of 1 percent of G.D.P.

Our underinvestment sets us apart from other advanced nations around the globe, particularly in Western Europe. France, Sweden and Britain commit far more than the United States to social services, as a percentage of their economy, while spending significantly less per capita and as a percentage of their economy on health care — and boast a higher life expectancy.

Many factors influence discrepancies in health care spending and outcomes between the United States and its counterparts: vastly different views about the financial incentives in health care; the high cost of prescription drugs, diagnostic tests and administrative expenses; and cultural expectations about end-of-life care. But we won’t effectively reduce costs, and improve outcomes, until we think bigger and recognize the critical link between health care spending and social programs.

Robert E. Rubin, secretary of the Treasury from 1995 to 1999, is a chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kenneth L. Davis is the president and chief executive of the Mount Sinai Health System.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.