The social determinants of health (SDOH) represent factors that impact the health and effectiveness/compliance of a treatment plan for a patient. The SDOH include such factors as economic stability, education, home and community context, access to healthcare, neighborhood and built environment, and personal behavior. The purpose of this study is to determine the extent of collection and integration of SDOH into clinical practice, and the usefulness of this information in medical decision making. Following a thorough literature review, an online survey was deployed to physicians and administrators around the country, with the aim of answering the following questions: 1) Do provider practices collect information on a patient's social determinants of health? 2) If yes, how is that information being used, if at all? 3) If not, what is preventing them from doing so? 4) Do the answers to questions 1-3 differ based on the type of payment model (Fee-for-Service or Capitation) to which the practice is subject? The results of the study suggest that fee-for-service payment environments present less incentive to use a patient's SDOH in medical decision making.

There is a lot of variation in health outcomes when it comes to individual states in America. Some states, such as Hawaii, have the life expectancy equivalent to that of developed countries, whereas states like Mississippi have the life expectancy equivalent to that of third world countries. This raised the questions of which states are doing well in health and why, and if their health has to do with their performance in the primary, secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary prevention levels. The purpose of this research was to investigate if there is a correlation between performance in any of the prevention levels and the overall health status of a state, and if there is, which prevention level would be most beneficial for states to prioritize. The hypothesis of this research was: states that prioritized primary and secondary levels of prevention would have better health than states that prioritized tertiary and quaternary levels of prevention, since basic health measures contribute more to health outcomes than advanced medicine. To investigate this question, indicators were chosen to derive the ranking of each state in health and each of the four prevention levels. Six states were then chosen to represent the high, average, and low health statuses respectively. The six states were ranked for all indicators, and the data was analyzed and compared to determine a potential relationship between the prevention level rankings and the overarching health ranking. It was found that there is a correlation between performance in the primary and secondary prevention levels and a state’s overall health status, whereas there was no such correlation for the tertiary and quaternary levels. A model for health was proposed for states looking to improve their health status, which was to invest in primary prevention, followed by secondary, tertiary, then quaternary prevention and only moving to the next prevention level once the previous level reached a satisfactory threshold.