Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 57, Issue 9, November 2003, Pages 1643-1652
Social Science & Medicine

Socioeconomic status and health among the aged in the United States and Germany: A comparative cross-sectional study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00020-0Get rights and content

Abstract

This study investigates socioeconomic status (SES) differences in health among the aged in Germany and the United States. Intra-elderly age differences in the SES–health gradient are also examined. The study uses data from two national telephone surveys conducted in Germany (N=682) and the United States (N=608) using probability samples of non-institutionalised persons 60 years or older. In addition to the traditional indicators of SES (education, income and occupational status), two alternative indicators (assets and home ownership) are utilised. Self-rated health, depression (CES-D) and functional limitations are introduced as health indicators. Results of multiple logistic regression analyses show that income is the best SES predictor of the three health measures among the aged in Germany, whereas education, occupational prestige, assets, and home ownership are not consistently related to health. Respective analyses of the US data demonstrate weaker and less consistent associations of health measures with SES indicators. Consequently, there is a higher percentage of explained variance in health by SES among the aged in Germany compared to the United States. The data also show that social inequalities in health tend to diminish at older ages in the United States, but such disparities vary only slightly by age in Germany. In conclusion, although SES health differences are observed among the elderly in both countries, they are more pronounced in Germany than in the United States where effects are restricted to younger old age. One interpretation of this finding points to higher selective mortality of middle and early old age groups with a low SES in the United States due to stronger health-related deprivation.

Introduction

Research in social epidemiology and medical sociology has consistently shown socioeconomic status (SES) differentials in morbidity and mortality in general populations. Those with lower SES generally experience higher morbidity and mortality rates than those with higher SES (Mackenbach, Kunst, Cavelaars, Groenhof, & Guerts, 1997; Marmot & Wilkinson, 1999; Mielck, 2000; Pappas, Queen, Hadden, & Fisher, 1993). Investigations into the determinants of social inequalities in health have documented that the following explanatory frameworks are of major importance: first, an increased risk of socially patterned unhealthy lifestyles in lower SES groups (Lantz et al., 2001; Lynch, Kaplan, Cohen, Tuomilehto, & Salonen, 1996); secondly, unequal access to and quality of health care received (Feinstein, 1993; Mackenbach, Stronks, & Kunst, 1989), and thirdly, differential exposure to material deprivation and a stressful psychosocial environment over the life course, with particular emphasis on early life (Kuh & Ben-Shlomo, 1997; Lynch et al., 1994) and on midlife (work, family, social exclusion; Blane, Brunner, & Wilkinson, 1996; Marmot, Theorell, & Siegrist, 2002; Shaw, Dorling, & Davey Smith, 1999).

Despite this progress, research on the determinants of social inequalities in health among elderly populations has been less frequent. In this respect, several studies have confirmed the hypothesis that SES differences in morbidity and mortality diminish with age, in particular as a result of selective survival into old age (House et al., 1994; Manor, Eisenbach, Peritz, & Frielander, 1999; Stolpe, 1997). However, contrary to this evidence, a number of investigations have documented a continuation of the social gradient of morbidity and mortality into old age (Berkman & Gurland, 1998; Lampert, 2000; Liao, McGee, Kaufman Cao, & Cooper, 1999; Marmot & Shipley, 1996; Parker, Ahacic, Thorslund, & Lundberg, 1999). It may be that part of the variation in these results is due to different indicators used to define socioeconomic position (Robert & House, 1996). Additionally, the size and consistency of SES differences in health varies according to the health indicators under study. Obviously, a social gradient in morbidity and mortality is not present in all chronic diseases and impairments, though it has been documented for the leading causes of death (Davey-Smith, Wentworth, Neaton, Stamler, & Stamler, 1996; Marmot, Shipley, & Rose, 1984). Finally, the social gradient of morbidity and mortality among elderly populations to some extent may vary according to organisational features of the health care system, such as access to health care and quality of care according to one's economic standing (Marmot & Nazroo, 2001).

In an attempt to disentangle these different sources of variation in results, this paper analyses SES differences in health among elderly populations in the following way. First, two samples of elderly people from two countries with different health care systems are studied—Germany and the United States. There is at least one far reaching difference between the two systems. While in the United States a significant proportion of the population is not covered by health insurance, this proportion is extremely low in Germany. If similar social differences in both countries are observed, this might suggest that access to health care is not a crucial factor to explain inequalities in health. Secondly, different SES indicators are included in the current analyses to explore the consistency or relative importance of single indicators, as proposed by Robert and House (1996). Thirdly, information on different health indicators has been collected in an attempt to examine the stability of the SES–health association. Finally, we analyse intra-elderly age differences in the association between SES and health.

Before describing the study design, these specifications of our approach are explained in more detail. As mentioned, the United States and Germany are especially interesting countries for comparative analyses because there are distinct differences regarding the organisation of health care (Lüschen, Cockerham, & Kunz, 1989). The German health care system represents an approach that is located between a national health care system like the United Kingdom at one end and a market system at the other end (e.g. United States of America). It is characterised by decentralised care delivered by social security agencies. Statutory sickness funds (“Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung”) are the most important financing institutions in the German health care system. Some 88.5% of the population is covered by statutory sickness funds, while the remainder either has a private (8.9%) or a special health insurance (2.4%). The proportion of people without any health insurance is very small (0.2%) (Knesebeck & Siegrist, 2001). In the United States, patients have higher rates of co-payments, and nearly 17% of the population have no health insurance (Pescosolido & Boyer, 2001). People 65 years and older are insured by Medicare program with a co-payment of about $3,000 per year (Klein & Unger, 2001). However, there are studies showing that the poor, elderly, and others with chronic illnesses receive less appropriate treatments under more recently developed managed care models (Ware, Bayliss, Rogers, Kosinski, & Tarlow, 1996).

In studies on SES differentials in health, income, occupational status and education are usually employed as indicators of socioeconomic position. In addition to these traditional indicators, two alternative indicators (assets and home ownership) were applied in our study. These indicators are increasingly used in socioepidemiological research (Graham, 2000; Shaw, Dorling, & Davey Smith, 1999), as they are expected to be more appropriate measures for older adults, assessing economic advantage or disadvantage accumulated over the life course (Robert & House, 1996). Moreover, most of the previous studies have used only one indicator of health when exploring the relationship between SES and health. Because SES might differentially affect different dimensions of health, our analyses include three health indicators that were shown to be important in gerontological research: self-rated health, depression and functional limitations (Adam, 1998; Beckett et al., 1996; Idler & Benyamini, 1997). Finally, we analyse intra-elderly age differences in the SES–health relationship. This is done because the age subgroups within an elderly population may differ with respect to an association of social inequalities with health. For instance, if a powerful effect of selective survival operates, this association is expected to be present in early old age, but to diminish or disappear among the oldest old.

Section snippets

Methods

This study uses data from two national surveys conducted in Germany and the United States in the years 2000 and 2001. Using probability samples of non-institutionalised persons 60 years or older, data were obtained by telephone interviews (computer assisted telephone interviews) with a mean duration of about 40 min. As the proportion of unlisted telephone numbers among the aged in Germany is small, a probability sample was drawn from telephone directories. In the United States, the proportion of

Results

In Germany, income has the strongest effects on all three health indicators net of age and gender (Table 2). Education, occupational prestige, and assets have significant effects on self-rated health and functional limitations, but only having low income is significantly related to depression (model I). Moreover, there are no significant associations between home ownership and the health outcomes in Germany. In the United States, we found significant effects of all indicators of SES for

Discussion

This study examined the association of different indicators of SES with three measures of health based on self-reports (self-rated health, depression, and functional limitations) in two samples of elderly people in the United States and Germany. Associations were less consistent than previously reported for middle-aged populations. However, we found that income is the best SES predictor of the three health measures among the aged in Germany net of age, gender, and the other four SES indicators.

Acknowledgements

The project “Social Status and Health among the Aged in two Welfare Systems—A Comparative Study in Germany and the USA” was supported by the Humboldt-Stiftung, Germany. We also acknowledge fruitful discussions within the network of the European Science Foundation Scientific Program on “Social Variations in Health Expectancy in Europe”. The authors are grateful to Peter Dübbert, Volker Hüfken, Lucy Lewis, and Karim Abu-Omar for helpful assistance and to two anonymous reviewers for their

References (57)

  • L.F Berkman et al.

    Social integration, social networks, social support, and health

  • C Berkman et al.

    The relationship among income, other socioeconomic indicators, and functional level in older persons

    Journal of Aging and Health

    (1998)
  • Blane, D., Brunner, E., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.) (1996). Health and social organisation. London:...
  • M Braun et al.

    Measurement of education in comparative research

    Comparative Social Research

    (1997)
  • E Breeze et al.

    Do socio-economic disadvantages persist into old age?

    American Journal of Public Health

    (2001)
  • W Crown

    Economic status of the elderly

  • G Davey-Smith et al.

    Socioeconomic differentials in mortality risk among men screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1996)
  • J.S Feinstein

    The relationship between socioeconomic status and healthA review of the literature

    The Milbank Quarterly

    (1993)
  • S Geyer et al.

    Income, occupational position, qualification and health inequalities—Competing risks?

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (2000)
  • Graham, H. (Ed.) (2000). Understanding health inequalities. Buckingham: Open University...
  • J.S House et al.

    Age, socioeconomic status and health

    The Milbank Quarterly

    (1990)
  • J.S House et al.

    The social stratification of aging and health

    Journal of Health and Social Behavior

    (1994)
  • E Idler et al.

    Self-rated health and mortalityA review of twenty-seven community studies

    Journal of Health and Social Behavior

    (1997)
  • S Katz et al.

    Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADLA standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1963)
  • T Klein et al.

    Einkommen, Gesundheit und Mortalität in Deutschland Großbritannien und den USA

    Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie

    (2001)
  • O.v.d Knesebeck et al.

    Stichprobenrealisierung bei einer bundesweiten telefonischen Befragung alter Menschen

    ZUMA-Nachrichten

    (2001)
  • O.v.d Knesebeck et al.

    Medical sociology in Germany

  • Kuh, D., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (Eds.) (1997). A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text