Should doctors record their patients’ income?

PATIENT AND POPULATION BENEFITS

Household (rather than individual) income would be the most useful data to record in most circumstances. Benefits of recording patients’ household income can be anticipated at a number of levels (Box 1). For patients, the quality of health care received may be improved if their doctor is aware of their household income. Doctors would be better able to: offer health and lifestyle advice suited to a person’s budget; identify patients for whom prescription charges (or other healthcare-related costs) may represent a challenge to compliance; and ensure patients are accessing community resources that could be helpful to them and state benefits to which they may be entitled.²

In UK primary care, one of the few means by which socioeconomic data is currently incorporated into clinical management is by means of QRISK: the prediction algorithm commonly used to calculate cardiovascular disease risk and guide therapeutic decision making. QRISK calculations incorporate traditional risk factors (including age, sex, blood pressure, and smoking status) plus the Townsend Deprivation Score derived from the individual’s UK postcode.³ Townsend Scores are based on census data collected every 10 years: arguably, as indicators of deprivation they are inadequately responsive to today’s rapid demographic changes. Furthermore, like any postcode-based indicator of deprivation (including the Index of Multiple Deprivation, often used in health research) the Townsend Score is unreliable where local populations are heterogeneous, is invalid for mobile populations or the homeless, and is liable to confounding by the area effect (postcodes may be associated with levels of deprivation, but may also be independently associated with other environmental health determinants, such as pollution). Through our unquestioning use of such flawed metrics we may be doing a disservice to our patients; particularly some of those who are already most vulnerable and socially excluded. Household income might ultimately offer an alternative or additional variable.

Linking household income to healthcare data would be of use to researchers and public health planners. It would enable better recognition of income-associated variation in healthcare access, healthcare experience, and health outcomes; permitting better-informed and more effectual corrective interventions. It could reveal the extent to which (if at all) associations between low income and poorer health are ameliorated by state benefits in Britain and it could help to disentangle the various confounded measures of deprivation.⁴ If we are to take seriously the issues of income and health inequities in Britain we need reliable knowledge of each, and of their interactions.

SHOULD DOCTORS DIAGNOSE POVERTY?

A strategy of ‘screening for poverty’ in primary care has been proposed in Canada.⁵ Canadian researchers found that the enquiry ‘Do you (ever) have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?’ had a sensitivity of 98% in detecting people below a determined ‘low-income cut-off’ or ‘poverty line’.⁶ In Australia, a Health Ministry summit recently heard that ‘GPs should routinely screen patients for poverty to cut deaths from preventable diseases’.⁷

A label of ‘poverty’ could be stigmatising for individuals. However, poverty itself arguably bestows more stigma than any label, and more health risk than any concern about stigma could outweigh. Unlike diagnostic thresholds for other risk factors, the ‘low-income cut-off’ would not be arbitrary: UK researchers have already defined a theoretical ‘Minimum Income for Healthy Living’ (and demonstrated that state benefits and minimum wage payments in the UK fall far short of this threshold).⁸,⁹ These theoretical calculations could be usefully supplemented by evidence on income and health from primary care to provide a strengthened basis for discussion on public policy and standards of social provision. In the UK, where income and health inequalities are worse than in either Canada or Australia, and among the worst in Europe,¹⁰ discussion and action on these issues is urgently required.

Poverty screening complements enquiries about household income but household income alone may not provide a complete picture of an individual’s available resources. Meanwhile, income-associated health inequities affect everyone, from the top to the bottom of society; not only those below the poverty line.¹ So both poverty screening and income enquiry could be valuably included in a consultation or annual review.

The suggestion of documenting income and diagnosing poverty may prompt accusations of unwarranted medicalisation; but income and poverty become medical issues when, as is inevitably the case, they impact on a person’s health. Furthermore, knowingly medicalising an issue need not be a bad thing if it brings some improvement to people’s condition through better research and understanding of health inequities; better targeting of interventions; and some political motivating and advocacy around income inequities and their health effects. These endeavours are manifestly the job of the health professions.¹¹

CONCLUSION

Should we record our patients’ household income? And be prepared to diagnose poverty? It may be a discomforting prospect. But our discomfort is poor justification for not recognising the evolving role of general practice; for avoiding truths about the extent of health inequities in Britain; for failing to acknowledge the lives blighted by these inequities that many of our patients lead; and failing to respond in clinical care and public health planning. It would be shameful indeed if our sensitivities about discussing income with individuals in primary care constituted yet another means by which health inequities were permitted to quietly continue increasing.