Broadband Impact on Health
Bridging the Digital Divide: The Impact of High-Speed Internet Access on Healthcare
42 million Americans lack access to high-speed broadband, exacerbating economic and health disparities, especially in rural and urban underserved areas. Poor internet access hampers the ability to use digital health resources, leading to worse health outcomes.
Working alongside actuaries, my partner and I aimed to analyze the impact of high-speed internet access on health outcomes in rural counties, culminating in proposed mitigation strategies/policies to address disparities in healthcare.
Determine the effects of high-speed internet access on health outcomes.
Identify the most impactful aspects of internet access (e.g., speed, price) on health improvements.
Research Objectives
DATA COLLECTION
[1] Federal Communication Commission’s National Broadband Map
Variables: Speed, price, and coverage at the county level.
[2] 2023 County Health Rankings by the University of Wisconsin’s Population Health Institute
Variables: Life expectancy, child mortality, diabetes prevalence, drug overdose mortality, uninsured rates.
DATA PROCESSING
[1] Filter data to focus on household broadband access and health outcomes.
[2] Standardize and merge datasets to ensure consistency.
[3] Calculate broadband coverage and affordability metrics.
Data Methodology
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression:
[1] Model the relationship between broadband access variables and health outcomes.
[2] Evaluate statistical significance and direction of coefficients.
Mathematics Methodology
Our results were measured on a variety of metrics including:
[1] R-squared (R²) Value
Measures the proportion of variance in the dependent variable predicted by the independent variable.
High R² indicates a model that better explains variability.
[2] Statistical Significance (p-value)
Low p-value (<0.05) indicates statistical significance, providing confidence in the coefficient’s estimation.
[3] Coefficient Magnitude and Direction
Positive sign: Direct relationship.
Negative sign: Inverse relationship.
Results
% Households with Broadband Access (Frequency: 6)
Wireless Low Price Coverage (Frequency: 3)
Copper Low Price Coverage (Frequency: 2)
Cable Coverage 25/3 Mbps (Frequency: 2)
Wireless Coverage 25/3 Mbps (Frequency: 2)
Recurrent Significant Factors
For factors with p-values higher than 0.05, or those with high standard errors, we exercise caution in interpretation. High standard errors indicate a wide confidence interval around the coefficient estimate, reducing the reliability of the effect size indicated by the coefficient.
We will focus on variables with p-values of 0.05 or lower and clear directionality (as indicated by the sign of their coefficients), allowing us to identify the most reliable and significant relationships within our dataset.
From the factors that are both statistically significant and make sense in the context of our analysis, we can make several determinations:
Broadband access has the most impact, with "% Households with Broadband Access" frequently appearing across multiple outcomes, highlighting its foundational importance.
Low Price Plan Coverages are also significant, indicating that affordability is crucial for positive health outcomes. Both Wireless and Copper Low Price Plan Coverage significantly influence public health metrics, showing that affordable broadband is essential.
The frequent mention of Cable and Wireless Coverage at 25/3 Mbps suggests this baseline level of service is particularly beneficial for health outcomes, supporting the idea that even this foundational speed tier can lead to significant health benefits.
Conclusions
The impact of limited internet access on health outcomes presents a significant risk to the livelihoods of Americans, both in rural areas and specific pockets of urban centers that are cut off from reliable high-speed internet. While it is challenging to precisely quantify the risks associated directly with a lack of internet access, the potential long-term ramifications of the digital divide for these communities warrants careful consideration and exploration of possible solutions.
Our results show that expanding internet access can help increase health metrics such as life expectancy and child mortality, and decrease preventable deaths from causes such as diabetes and drug overdoses. Lack of internet specifically poses a variety of risks towards an individual’s health outcomes, including:
Decreased Utilization of Telehealth: Telehealth reduces geographic healthcare inequalities and the lack of access to telehealth services leads to untreated conditions becoming life-threatening. Digital health services enable early diagnosis and preventative care, mitigating risks and managing chronic conditions like diabetes.
Reduced Access to Reliable Health Information: Lack of internet access limits information on managing chronic conditions and understanding health risks. For example, the opioid epidemic cost the U.S. economy $1.5 trillion in 2020, a figure expected to rise without proper intervention.
Risk Analysis
Based on our analysis, we recommend two key strategies to address the digital divide and improve health outcomes: increasing internet access and affordability. Higher internet speeds above the current baseline (25/3 Mbps) showed limited additional health benefits.
[1] Financial Assistance Programs
Key Impact: Availability of low-cost internet plans significantly affects health outcomes.
Example: The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, provided up to $30/month discounts ($75 for Tribal lands). As of February 2024, it benefited 23 million households, particularly African American and Latino communities.
Current Challenge: ACP is set to end in April 2024 due to lack of funding, risking loss of internet for millions.
Action: Pass the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act to invest $7 billion in continuing the program and expand similar initiatives to make high-speed internet more affordable.
[2] Encouraging Competition Among Internet Service Providers
Current Issue: The broadband market is dominated by a few providers (e.g., Comcast, Verizon, AT&T), leading to high costs and limited incentives for improvement.
Barrier: High costs of building infrastructure, especially in rural areas, discourage new providers.
Finding: Increasing competition can reduce prices. Areas with at least three providers pay about $5/month less on average.
Actions:
[1] Support regional and municipal broadband initiatives by providing funding to lower market entry barriers.
[2] Regulatory bodies like the FCC should scrutinize dominant providers to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote fair competition.
Recommendations