The following table provides eligibility levels in each state for key coverage groups that use Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), as of April 1, 2018. The data represent the principal, but not all, MAGI coverage groups in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Basic Health Program (BHP). All income standards are expressed as a percentage of the federal poverty level (FPL). The MAGI-based rules generally include adjusting an individual’s income by an amount equivalent to a 5% FPL disregard. Other eligibility criteria also apply, such as citizenship, immigration status, and state residency. For more information, see: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/index.html

The dataset gives information on the total number of Health plan selection of 2601 counties with respect to the Household Income as Percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

Abstract (en): In January 2013, the Urban Institute launched the Health Reform Monitoring Survey (HRMS), a quarterly survey of the nonelderly population, to explore the value of cutting-edge, Internet-based survey methods to monitor the Affordable Care Act (ACA) before data from federal government surveys are available. Topics covered by the second round of the survey (second quarter 2013) include self-reported health status, type of and satisfaction with current health insurance coverage, access to and use of health care, health care affordability, whether the respondent considered purchasing or tried to purchase health insurance coverage directly from an insurance company, whether the respondent considered obtaining coverage through Medicaid or other government sponsored assistance plan based on income or disability, sources of information about health insurance, and the importance of various criteria in choosing a health insurance plan. Additional information collected by the survey includes age, education, race, Hispanic origin, gender, income, household size, housing type, marital status, employment status, number of employees at place of work, United States citizenship, smoking, internet access, home ownership, body mass index, sexual orientation, and whether the respondent reported an ambulatory care sensitive condition or a mental or behavioral condition. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: The HRMS response rate is roughly five percent each quarter. Datasets:DS0: Study-Level FilesDS1: Public-use DataDS2: Restricted-use Data Household population aged 18-64. Each quarterly HRMS sample is drawn from the KnowledgePanel, a probability-based, nationally representative Internet panel maintained by GfK Custom Research. Beginning with the second quarter of 2013, the HRMS includes oversamples of adults with family incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level and adults from selected state groups based on (1) the potential for gains in insurance coverage in the state under the ACA as estimated by the Urban Institute's microsimulation model and (2) states of specific interest to the HRMS funders. Additional funders have supported oversamples of adults from individual states or subgroups of interest (including children). However, ICPSR received data only for the adults in the general national sample and the income and state group oversamples. 2019-07-10 Variable Q7_F was removed from public dataset. An updated codebook excluding this variable was provided for public use. Current release will feature DS1 as public-use data only and DS2 as restricted-use data. Previous release included both public and restricted versions of DS1. Study title updated to include geographic information.2017-06-20 The principal investigators added a new weight variable to the data file and the technical documentation was updated accordingly.2015-03-23 The principal investigators deleted the multiple imputation variables _1_famsize, _2_famsize, _3_famsize, _4_famsize and _5_famsize. ICPSR revised the codebook accordingly and added to the collection a plain text version of the data with a Stata setup and record layout file. Funding institution(s): Ford Foundation. Urban Institute. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (71390). web-based survey

This feature service contains data from the American Community Survey: 5-year Estimates Subject Tables for all census tracts within Gallatin County. The attributes come from the Selected Characteristics of Health Insurance Coverage in the United States table (S2701). Processing Notes:Data was downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau and imported into FME to create an AGOL Feature Service. Each attribute has been given an abbreviated alias name derived from the American Community Survey (ACS) categorical descriptions. The Data Dictionary below includes all given ACS attribute name aliases. For example: Pct_Uninsured_EduB is the percent of the population that is without health insurance coverage, noninstitutionalized 26 years and over, with a Bachelor's degree or higherData DictionaryACS_EST_YR: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate Subject Tables data yearGEO_ID: Census Bureau geographic identifierNAME: Specified geographyPct_Insured: Percent of the population with health insurance coveragePct_Uninsured: Percent of the population without health insurance coverageRace/Ethinicity:A: AsianAIAN: American Indian or Alaska NativeBAA: Black or African AmericanHL: Hispanic or LatinoNHPI: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific IslanderW: WhiteOther: Some other raceTwo: Two or more racesAnnual Income:IncUnder25k: Household income below $25,000Inc25kto50k:Household income from $25,000 to $49,999Inc50kto75k: Household income from $50,000 to $74,999Inc75kto100k: Household income from $75,000 to $99,999IncOver100k: Household income $100,000 and overEducational Attainment (Civilian noninstitutionalized population 26 years and over):EduB: Bachelor's degree or higherEduHS: High school graduate (includes equivalency)EduNHS: Less than high school graduateEduA: Some college or associate's degreeDownload Selected Characteristics of Health Insurance Coverage in the United States data for Gallatin County, MT. Additional LinksU.S. Census BureauU.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS)About the American Community Survey

Analysis of ‘Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/9d477b09-ff02-43ea-ae43-8be552606d83 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

The following table provides eligibility levels in each state for key coverage groups that use Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), as of April 1, 2018. The data represent the principal, but not all, MAGI coverage groups in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Basic Health Program (BHP). All income standards are expressed as a percentage of the federal poverty level (FPL). The MAGI-based rules generally include adjusting an individual’s income by an amount equivalent to a 5% FPL disregard. Other eligibility criteria also apply, such as citizenship, immigration status, and state residency.

For more information, see: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/index.html

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Abstract (en): In 2008, a group of uninsured low-income adults in Oregon was selected by lottery to be given the chance to apply for Medicaid. This lottery provides an opportunity to gauge the effects of expanding access to public health insurance on the health care use, financial strain, and health of low-income adults using a randomized controlled design. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment follows and compares those selected in the lottery (treatment group) with those not selected (control group). The data collected and provided here include data from in-person interviews, three mail surveys, emergency department records, and administrative records on Medicaid enrollment, the initial lottery sign-up list, welfare benefits, and mortality. This data collection has seven data files: Dataset 1 contains administrative data on the lottery from the state of Oregon. These data include demographic characteristics that were recorded when individuals signed up for the lottery, date of lottery draw, and information on who was selected for the lottery, applied for the lotteried Medicaid plan if selected, and whose application for the lotteried plan was approved. Also included are Oregon mortality data for 2008 and 2009. Dataset 2 contains information from the state of Oregon on the individuals' participation in Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Datasets 3-5 contain the data from the initial, six month, and 12 month mail surveys, respectively. Topics covered by the surveys include demographic characteristics; health insurance, access to health care and health care utilization; health care needs, experiences, and costs; overall health status and changes in health; and depression and medical conditions and use of medications to treat them. Dataset 6 contains an analysis subset of the variables from the in-person interviews. Topics covered by the survey questionnaire include overall health, health insurance coverage, health care access, health care utilization, conditions and treatments, health behaviors, medical and dental costs, and demographic characteristics. The interviewers also obtained blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and collected dried blood spots to measure levels of cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin and C-reactive protein. Dataset 7 contains an analysis subset of the variables the study obtained for all emergency department (ED) visits to twelve hospitals in the Portland area during 2007-2009. These variables capture total hospital costs, ED costs, and the number of ED visits categorized by time of the visit (daytime weekday or nighttime and weekends), necessity of the visit (emergent, ED care needed, non-preventable; emergent, ED care needed, preventable; emergent, primary care treatable), ambulatory case sensitive status, whether or not the patient was hospitalized, and the reason for the visit (e.g., injury, abdominal pain, chest pain, headache, and mental disorders). The collection also includes a ZIP archive (Dataset 8) with Stata programs that replicate analyses reported in three articles by the principal investigators and others: Finkelstein, Amy et al "The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. August 2012. Vol 127(3). Baicker, Katherine et al "The Oregon Experiment - Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes". New England Journal of Medicine. 2 May 2013. Vol 368(18). Taubman, Sarah et al "Medicaid Increases Emergency Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment". Science. 2 Jan 2014. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Presence of Common Scales: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Total Severity Score SF-8 Health Survey Physical Component Score SF-8 Health Survey Mental Component Score Framingham Risk Score Response Rates: For the mail surveys, the response rates were 45 percent for the initial survey, 49 percent for the six month survey, and 41 percent for the 12 month survey. For the in-person survey the response rate was 59 percent. The individu...

This feature service contains data from the American Community Survey: 5-year Estimates Subject Tables for City of Bozeman, MT. The attributes come from the Selected Characteristics of Health Insurance Coverage in the United States table (S2701). Processing Notes:Data was downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau and imported into FME to create an AGOL Feature Service. Each attribute has been given an abbreviated alias name derived from the American Community Survey (ACS) categorical descriptions. The Data Dictionary below includes all given ACS attribute name aliases. For example: Pct_Uninsured_EduB is the percent of the population that is without health insurance coverage, noninstitutionalized 26 years and over, with a Bachelor's degree or higherData DictionaryACS_EST_YR: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate Subject Tables data yearGEO_ID: Census Bureau geographic identifierNAME: Specified geographyPct_Insured: Percent of the population with health insurance coveragePct_Uninsured: Percent of the population without health insurance coverageRace/Ethinicity:A: AsianAIAN: American Indian or Alaska NativeBAA: Black or African AmericanHL: Hispanic or LatinoNHPI: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific IslanderW: WhiteOther: Some other raceTwo: Two or more racesAnnual Income:IncUnder25k: Household income below $25,000Inc25kto50k:Household income from $25,000 to $49,999Inc50kto75k: Household income from $50,000 to $74,999Inc75kto100k: Household income from $75,000 to $99,999IncOver100k: Household income $100,000 and overEducational Attainment (Civilian noninstitutionalized population 26 years and over):EduB: Bachelor's degree or higherEduHS: High school graduate (includes equivalency)EduNHS: Less than high school graduateEduA: Some college or associate's degreeDownload Selected Characteristics of Health Insurance Coverage in the United States data for Bozeman, MT. Additional LinksU.S. Census BureauU.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS)About the American Community Survey

The COVID-19 Claims Reimbursement to Health Care Providers and Facilities for Testing, Treatment, and Vaccine Administration for the Uninsured Program provides reimbursements on a rolling basis directly to eligible health care entities for claims that are attributed to the testing, treatment, and or vaccine administration of COVID-19 for uninsured individuals. The program funding information is as follow:

TESTING The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) which provided $4.8 billion to reimburse providers for testing the uninsured; the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) Relief Fund, which includes funds received from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, as appropriated in the FFCRCA (P.L. 116-127) and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (P.L. 116-139) (PPPHCEA), which each appropriated $1 billion to reimburse health care entities for conducting COVID-19 testing for the uninsured.

TREATMENT & VACCINATION The Provider Relief Fund, which includes funds received from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, as appropriated in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136), provided $100 billion in relief funds. The PPPHCEA appropriated an additional $75 billion in relief funds and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act (P.L. 116-260) appropriated another $3 billion. Within the Provider Relief Fund, a portion of the funding from these sources will be used to support healthcare-related expenses attributable to the treatment of uninsured individuals with COVID-19 and vaccination of uninsured individuals. To learn more about the program, visit: https://www.hrsa.gov/CovidUninsuredClaim

This dataset represents the list of health care entities who have agreed to the Terms and Conditions and received claims reimbursement for COVID-19 testing of uninsured individuals, vaccine administration and treatment for uninsured individuals with a COVID-19 diagnosis.

For Provider Relief Fund Data - https://data.cdc.gov/Administrative/HHS-Provider-Relief-Fund/kh8y-3es6

Series Name: Proportion of population with large household expenditures on health (greater than 10percent) as a share of total household expenditure or income (percent)Series Code: SH_XPD_EARN10Release Version: 2020.Q2.G.03 This dataset is the part of the Global SDG Indicator Database compiled through the UN System in preparation for the Secretary-General's annual report on Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.Indicator 3.8.2: Proportion of population with large household expenditures on health as a share of total household expenditure or incomeTarget 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for allGoal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all agesFor more information on the compilation methodology of this dataset, see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/

The American Community Survey 5-year Data Profile (DP03) of Selected Economic Characteristics was downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau for state, county, place, reservation, house district, senate district and tract geographies in the state of Montana.Selected economic characteristics in this data set include: EMPLOYMENT STATUS, COMMUTING TO WORK, OCCUPATION, INDUSTRY, CLASS OF WORKER, INCOME AND BENEFITS, HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE, POVERTY - PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.Downloaded January 2020.Please refer to the American Community Survey section of the U.S. Census Bureau website for detailed information about this data set.

Proportion of patients in the same occupation or income class who received a drug-eluting stent, as differentiated by the hospital's inclination toward DES use (i.e., the proportion of patients that received a DES compared to other treatment options).

The American Community Survey 5-year Data Profile (DP03) of Selected Economic Characteristics was downloaded from the U.S. Census Bureau for state, county, place, reservation, house district, senate district and tract geographies in the state of Montana.Selected economic characteristics in this data set include: EMPLOYMENT STATUS, COMMUTING TO WORK, OCCUPATION, INDUSTRY, CLASS OF WORKER, INCOME AND BENEFITS, HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE, POVERTY - PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Downloaded December 2022.Please refer to the American Community Survey section of the U.S. Census Bureau website for detailed information about this data set.

Providers in these clinics offer sliding fee schedules to provide free or discounted care to uninsured or underinsured patients to make medical services more affordable. Discounted/sliding fee schedules are a means of addressing the need for equitable charges for services rendered to patients. A discounted/sliding fee schedule is developed according to local fee standards and must be in writing. Discounted/sliding fees are based upon federal poverty guidelines, and patient eligibility is determined by annual income and family size. Schedules are established and implemented to ensure that a non-discriminatory, uniform, and reasonable charge is consistently and evenly applied.For patients whose household income and family size place them below poverty, a nominal fee is charged. Patients between 101-200% of poverty are expected to pay some percentage of the full fee. A discounted/sliding fee schedule applies only to direct patient charges. Billing for third party coverage (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or private insurance carriers) is set at the usual and customary full charge. This dataset include mental health, dental, and primary care clinics. All Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), FQHC-Look-Alikes (FQHC-LALs), National Health Service Corp, Arizona Loan Repayment, and J-1 visa waiver sites are required to apply the discounted/sliding fee-schedule equally, consistently and on a continuous basis to all recipients of services in their site and/or location, without regard to the particular clinician that treats them.Data sources: National Health Service Corps (NHSC), Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers (AACHC), and HRSA State Loan Repayment Program (SLRP).Last Updated: September 2023Update Frequency: Annually

This dataset identifies selected economic characteristics by zip code tabulation areas within the United States. This dataset resulted from the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted from 2010 through 2014. The economic characteristics include employment status, commuting to work, occupation, class of worker, income and benefits, health insurance coverage, and percentage of families and people whose income in the past 12 months is below the poverty level.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Employment, Commuting, Occupation, Income, Health Insurance, Poverty, and more. This service is updated annually with American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data. Contact: District of Columbia, Office of Planning. Email: planning@dc.gov. Geography: Census Tracts. Current Vintage: 2019-2023. ACS Table(s): DP03. Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey. Date of API call: January 2, 2025. National Figures: data.census.gov. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data. Data Note from the Census: Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. Data Processing Notes: This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page. Data processed using R statistical package and ArcGIS Desktop. Margin of Error was not included in this layer but is available from the Census Bureau. Contact the Office of Planning for more information about obtaining Margin of Error values.

To estimate county of residence of Filipinx healthcare workers who died of COVID-19, we retrieved data from the Kanlungan website during the month of December 2020.22 In deciding who to include on the website, the AF3IRM team that established the Kanlungan website set two standards in data collection. First, the team found at least one source explicitly stating that the fallen healthcare worker was of Philippine ancestry; this was mostly media articles or obituaries sharing the life stories of the deceased. In a few cases, the confirmation came directly from the deceased healthcare worker's family member who submitted a tribute. Second, the team required a minimum of two sources to identify and announce fallen healthcare workers. We retrieved 86 US tributes from Kanlungan, but only 81 of them had information on county of residence. In total, 45 US counties with at least one reported tribute to a Filipinx healthcare worker who died of COVID-19 were identified for analysis and will hereafter be referred to as “Kanlungan counties.” Mortality data by county, race, and ethnicity came from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).24 Updated weekly, this dataset is based on vital statistics data for use in conducting public health surveillance in near real time to provide provisional mortality estimates based on data received and processed by a specified cutoff date, before data are finalized and publicly released.25 We used the data released on December 30, 2020, which included provisional COVID-19 death counts from February 1, 2020 to December 26, 2020—during the height of the pandemic and prior to COVID-19 vaccines being available—for counties with at least 100 total COVID-19 deaths. During this time period, 501 counties (15.9% of the total 3,142 counties in all 50 states and Washington DC)26 met this criterion. Data on COVID-19 deaths were available for six major racial/ethnic groups: Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian (hereafter referred to as Asian American), and Hispanic. People with more than one race, and those with unknown race were included in the “Other” category. NCHS suppressed county-level data by race and ethnicity if death counts are less than 10. In total, 133 US counties reported COVID-19 mortality data for Asian Americans. These data were used to calculate the percentage of all COVID-19 decedents in the county who were Asian American. We used data from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates, downloaded from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) to create county-level population demographic variables.27 IPUMS is publicly available, and the database integrates samples using ACS data from 2000 to the present using a high degree of precision.27 We applied survey weights to calculate the following variables at the county-level: median age among Asian Americans, average income to poverty ratio among Asian Americans, the percentage of the county population that is Filipinx, and the percentage of healthcare workers in the county who are Filipinx. Healthcare workers encompassed all healthcare practitioners, technical occupations, and healthcare service occupations, including nurse practitioners, physicians, surgeons, dentists, physical therapists, home health aides, personal care aides, and other medical technicians and healthcare support workers. County-level data were available for 107 out of the 133 counties (80.5%) that had NCHS data on the distribution of COVID-19 deaths among Asian Americans, and 96 counties (72.2%) with Asian American healthcare workforce data. The ACS 2018 five-year estimates were also the source of county-level percentage of the Asian American population (alone or in combination) who are Filipinx.8 In addition, the ACS provided county-level population counts26 to calculate population density (people per 1,000 people per square mile), estimated by dividing the total population by the county area, then dividing by 1,000 people. The county area was calculated in ArcGIS 10.7.1 using the county boundary shapefile and projected to Albers equal area conic (for counties in the US contiguous states), Hawai’i Albers Equal Area Conic (for Hawai’i counties), and Alaska Albers Equal Area Conic (for Alaska counties).20

IntroductionHealth-facility data serves as a primary source for monitoring service provision and guiding the attainment of health targets. District Health Information Software (DHIS2) is a free open software predominantly used in low and middle-income countries to manage the facility-based data and monitor program wise service delivery. Evidence suggests the lack of quality in the routine maternal and child health information, however there is no robust analysis to evaluate the extent of its inaccuracy. We aim to bridge this gap by accessing the quality of DHIS2 data reported by health facilities to monitor priority maternal, newborn and child health indicators in Lumbini Province, Nepal.MethodsA facility-based descriptive study design involving desk review of Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health (MNCH) data was used. In 2021/22, DHIS2 contained a total of 12873 reports in safe motherhood, 12182 reports in immunization, 12673 reports in nutrition and 12568 reports in IMNCI program in Lumbini Province. Of those, monthly aggregated DHIS2 data were downloaded at one time and included 23 priority maternal and child health related data items. Of these 23 items, nine were chosen to assess consistency over time and identify outliers in reference years. Twelve items were selected to examine consistency between related data, while five items were chosen to assess the external consistency of coverage rates. We reviewed the completeness, timeliness and consistency of these data items and considered the prospects for improvement.ResultsThe overall completeness of facility reporting was found within 98% to 100% while timeliness of facility reporting ranged from 94% to 96% in each Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) datasets. DHIS2 reported data for all 9 MNCH data items are consistent over time in 4 of 12 districts as all the selected data items are within ±33% difference from the provincial ratio. Of the eight MNCH data items assessed, four districts reported ≥5% monthly values that were moderate outliers in a reference year with no extreme outliers in any districts. Consistency between six-pairs of data items that are expected to show similar patterns are compared and found that three pairs are within ±10% of each other in all 12 districts. Comparison between the coverage rates of selected tracer indicators fall within ±33% of the DHS survey result.ConclusionGiven the WHO data quality guidance and national benchmark, facilities in the Lumbini province well maintained the completeness and timeliness of MNCH datasets. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in maintaining consistency over time, plausibility and predicted relationship of reported data. Encouraging the promotion of data review through the data management committee, strengthening the system inbuilt data validation mechanism in DHIS2, and promoting routine data quality assessment systems should be greatly encouraged.