COVID-19 Vaccine Rollouts and the Reproduction of Urban Spatial Inequality: Disparities Within Large U.S. Cities in March and April 2021 by Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Composition

Socioeconomic status (SES) and health care

We conceptualized socioeconomic status (SES) through the conventional sociological lens of life chances,^{10, 11} or individuals’ likelihood of “gaining access to scarce and valued outcomes.”^12(p32) In this analysis, the scarce and valued outcome—COVID-19 vaccination—was health-related and facilitated by internet access. We adjusted for corresponding SES variables, in addition to poverty levels and vaccine priority populations.

Several independent variables measured relationships to the health care system. We partially accounted for the effects of vaccination priority regulations by adjusting for the population of health care workers. Population estimates were unavailable for this exact group, but ACS data allowed us to closely approximate them. We adjusted for the percent of the civilian employed population age 16 or older that worked in “health care and social assistance.”¹³ This category included employees of hospitals, medical practices, chiropractic practices, dental practices, optometry practices, outpatient and home health care services, nursing and residential care facilities, and other health settings. It also included employees of social service providers, child care services, and other “social assistance” professions. These social assistance workers were typically excluded from early priority groups for vaccination. The population employed in “health care and social assistance” industries was the best available proxy for health care workers, but our variable is effectively an estimate with error.

We also included two independent variables measuring health insurance status. The first was the percent of the population enrolled in Medicaid or other means-tested public health insurance. This variable comprised individuals who had “Medicaid, Medical Assistance, or any kind of government-assistance plan for those with low incomes or a disability.”^14p73 It included individuals who had one of these types of insurance in combination with one or more other types of health insurance. The second insurance-related variable was the percent of individuals without health insurance coverage. Together, these two variables captured populations that were among the least integrated into the U.S. health care system.

We adjusted for income, a key component of SES, by including the percent of the population that was below the poverty line:

The data on poverty status of households were derived from answers to the income questions. Since poverty is defined at the family level and not the household level, the poverty status of the household is determined by the poverty status of the householder. Households are classified as poor when the total income of the householder’s family is below the appropriate poverty threshold. (For nonfamily householders, their own income is compared with the appropriate threshold.) The income of people living in the household who are unrelated to the householder is not considered when determining the poverty status of a household, nor does their presence affect the family size in determining the appropriate threshold. The poverty thresholds vary depending on three criteria: size of family, number of related children, and, for 1- and 2-person families, age of householder.^14p30

Percent without internet access was an important independent variable because making appointments online was often the most effective way to secure a vaccine. This variable was the only variable measured at the household level. In the ACS, internet access is defined as “whether or not someone in the household uses or can connect to the internet, regardless of whether or not they pay for the service.”^14p13 Households are designated as having internet access if at least one member can access the internet through a computer or mobile device.

Race/ethnicity

We use the term “race/ethnicity” rather than “race,” “ethnicity,” or “race and ethnicity.” In the 2015–2019 ACS, USCB considered Hispanic, Latino, and Spanish origins as indicators of ethnicity and other origins as indicators of race.¹⁴ USCB racial/ethnic definitions change over time and are often unaligned with popular understandings of race/ethnicity, academic definitions of race/ethnicity, or analytically appropriate racial/ethnic schemes for a research question or site.^15–22 A sharp distinction between race and ethnicity does not reflect the processes of stratification in which we were interested in this analysis. The combined term “race/ethnicity” communicates the construct of interest and the structure of the data we used to measure it.

From ACS data,^{8, 14} we created variables measuring the estimated populations of four mutually exclusive, non-exhaustive racial/ethnic groups: Black, Hispanic, Asian, and White. We defined Hispanic as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, of any race(s). We defined Black, Asian, and White as Black or African American alone, Asian alone, and White alone, respectively, and non-Hispanic. This approach implies a fifth category comprised of non-Hispanic individuals of multiple races or of any other race alone, including American Indians, native Alaskans and Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. The four racial/ethnic variables did not sum to one (100 percent) unless the estimated population of the fifth category was zero.

Thoroughly accounting for limitations stemming from USCB racial/ethnic categories was outside the scope of our analysis, but attending to the definitions of racial/ethnic categories aids in interpreting our findings. In the ACS,

The terms “Hispanic,” “Latino,” and “Spanish” are used interchangeably. Some respondents identify with all three terms while others may identify with only one of these three specific terms. Hispanics or Latinos who identify with the terms “Hispanic,” “Latino,” or “Spanish” are those who classify themselves in one or more of the specific Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish categories listed on the questionnaire (“Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban”) as well as those who indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.” … People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.^14p76

The ACS classifies individuals as White if they report “origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa,” including people who “report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.”^14p114 It classifies individuals as Black or African American if they report “origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa,” including people who “report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”^14p114 It classifies individuals as Asian if they report “origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.”^14p115

Testing for and modeling spatial effects

Estimating SLMs by LS, the most common tool for analyzing high-dimensional relationships among variables, is unbiased and efficient in many settings.⁶⁴ In the presence of spatial effects, however, LS estimates are inaccurate and/or require larger samples to model relationships.^{65, 66, 68, 69} There are two basic classes of spatial effects: spatial heterogeneity and spatial dependence.

Spatial heterogeneity “is related to the lack of stability over space of the … relationships under study. More precisely, this implies that functional forms and parameters vary with location and are not homogeneous throughout the data set.”^65p9 It was plausible that the relationships among vaccination, priority population composition, socioeconomic composition, and racial/ethnic composition varied from unit to unit but were spatially clustered, even within cities. In principle, the likely sources of spatial heterogeneity could be modeled as independent variables; in practice, they were unobserved. Potential unmeasurable sources of spatial heterogeneity included past levels of exposure to COVID-19, hyperlocal idiosyncrasies in the effects or implementation of vaccination policies, and cultural influences.

Spatial dependence, which includes spillover effects or externalities, is “the existence of a functional relationship between what happens at one point in space and what happens elsewhere.”^65p11 Spatial dependence seemed less likely to contaminate this analysis, but it was not implausible. For example, zero-sum dynamics could have emerged between neighboring units when vaccine doses were scarce. Similarly, peer-effects might have caused uneven diffusion of vaccination across space.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure e4.1:

Estimated coefficients from standard linear model (SLM) and spatial error model (SEM) estimates of COVID-19 vaccination levels in the population age 15 and older of interpolated units of analysis across eight large U.S. cities, March and April 2021

Testing for and modeling spatial effects requires the researcher to specify the structure of spatial relationships. This structure is conventionally represented in matrix form as in Equation e4.4.^70–72 We evaluated various common spatial weight matrix specifications, including adjacency (“queen” and “rook” contiguity), inverse distance, power distance, exponential distance, and nearest-neighbor weighting. We defined distance between units as the number of kilometers between their geometric centers, or centroids.^{57, 73}

We ultimately used a row-standardized k nearest-neighbors scheme, with k = 8. With this specification of W, we assumed relationships were best measured relative to the eight other units closest to each unit. Each unit’s eight nearest-neighbors contributed equally to the spatial influence on it, and each unit’s spatial weights summed to one; each nearest-neighbor contributed one-eighth of the spatial influence on unit i.

In our multi-city analysis, nearest-neighbor weighting produced more consistent weights than contiguity- or distance-based weighting. The units of analysis were irregularly sized and sometimes physically discontinuous within cities, and density and sprawl varied considerably across cities (see Figure e3.1 and Table e3.4). Nearest-neighbor weighting ensured each unit was weighted relative to the same number of other units. It also avoided fluctuations from the varying spatial distributions of cities’ populations and the arbitrary boundaries of ZCTAs. Compared to contiguity-based weights, the nearest-neighbor approach was particularly advantageous for units on the edges of cities’ boundaries and units with few or zero adjacent neighbors (such as islands). Compared to distance-based weights, it avoided skew that could result from atypically large units that received artificially low weights due to their exaggerated inter-centroid distances with other units. Overall, nearest-neighbor weights with k = 8 struck an effective balance between the more rigid assumptions of contiguity-based weights and the perhaps overly-encompassing assumptions of distance-based weights.

We first tested for spatial effects by evaluating clustering in the SLM residuals using Moran’s I.⁷⁴ A spatial complement to the conventional correlation coefficient, I measures spatial autocorrelation on a scale from negative one to one. To determine whether I was statistically distinguishable from zero, we ran permutation tests with 9, 999 iterations.⁷³ We report Moran’s I for the SLMs that included all independent variables in the first row of Table e4.3. For each model, I was positive and highly significant, indicating units closer to one another had more similar residuals than units farther from one another (positive spatial autocorrelation). The Moran’s I test on the SLM residuals provided strong preliminary evidence of spatial effects, suggesting LS estimation was suboptimal in our setting.

Whereas I is a generic test statistic for spatial autocorrelation, Lagrange multiplier tests for SLM residuals help distinguish between types of spatial effects—i.e., to determine whether models exhibit spatial heterogeneity, dependence, or both.⁷⁵ We summarize the results of the Lagrange multiplier tests for the SLM residuals in the bottom four rows of Table e4.3.⁷³ The tests rejected the null hypothesis that the SLMs were free of spatial heterogeneity at p < 0.001. They retained the null hypothesis that the models were free of spatial dependence. These results held when testing for heterogeneity and dependence alone (simple tests) and when accounting for the simultaneous possibility of the other (robust tests). Lagrange multiplier tests strongly suggested the spatial relationships among our independent and dependent variables were heterogeneous across space, but no evidence emerged for dependence among nearby units.

When spatial heterogeneity is present and spatial dependence absent, the SEM is a standard modeling approach.^{65, 66, 72} SEMs account for unobserved, spatially clustered independent variables—spatial autoccorelation in the disturbances—that lead to spatial clustering in the associations among observed variables. LS estimation cannot capture these spatial dynamics. SEMs yield reliable estimates in the absence of spillover effects and reduce bias from confounding variables.⁶⁹ Another advantage of SEMs is interpretability. Unlike other spatial models, the independent variables are identical between SLMs and corresponding SEMs. The difference between SLMs and SEMs instead lies in the specification of the disturbances: SEMs introduce a spatially correlated vector of random effects, u in Equation e4.2. Interpreting SEM parameter estimates is thus comparable to interpreting SLM coefficients.⁷⁶ By estimating SEMs, we assumed that u was independent of X—i.e., that unmeasured spatially clustered variables were uncorrelated with the observed independent variables.

City fixed effects, population weights, and cluster-robust standard errors

There were three other key components to our modeling strategy. First, we included city fixed effects. Because state and local authorities oversaw vaccine distribution and local political contexts varied dramatically, potential sources of city-level heterogeneity abounded. The fixed effects adjusted for unobserved characteristics that units shared within cities.⁷⁷ They accounted for the possibility that average outcomes varied by city and purged associated confounding.

Second, we weighted the units of analysis by population using matrix Q. Population weighting addressed heteroskedasticity stemming from associations between the variance in vaccination outcomes and the number of residents of each unit.⁷⁸ The substantive assumption of unweighted models would have been that each unit represented an equal share of the process of vaccine distribution and uptake. Estimating sample-wide average associations among the independent and dependent variables required weighting by the population of each unit that could receive the vaccine.^79–81 Due to the weighting, more populous units and cities influenced estimation more than less populous counterparts, consistent with their greater share of the sampled population. Table e3.5 contextualizes the relative influence of each city.

Third, we assessed statistical significance using heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors clustered by state (cluster-robust standard errors). While fixed effects netted out city-level unobserved heterogeneity, disturbances for units in the same state were vulnerable to clustering. (Of the eight cities, three were in Texas). We addressed this issue by computing standard errors using the product of the conventional “sandwich” estimator⁸² and where µ = 6 was the number of clusters.^{83, 84} (This adjustment to the “sandwich” estimator is the default in many Stata commands). Calculated in this way, the standard errors were robust to within-state residual correlation.

Motivation

To illustrate relationships among the independent and dependent variables, we used a simulation approach. It was similar to conventional marginal effects analyses, which contextualize associations by visualizing the outcome that a model would predict given relevant values of the independent variables.^{85, 86} Because SEMs account for unobserved, spatially clustered variables, it is effectively impossible for researchers to identify appropriate points in the distribution at which to analyze trends and to predict the corresponding outcomes.^{87, 88} One approach would be to ignore the spatial structure of the disturbances and compute unit-level predictions for hypothetical observations, effectively treating the SEM as a SLM. This approach, however, distorts the modeled relationships.

Our simulations accounted for the spatial structure of the data. Instead of an estimate for individual hypothetical units as in marginal effects analyses, we derived sample-wide average estimated outcomes under instructive hypothetical conditions. We assumed every observation in the sample took on representative values at points of interest in the within-city distributions of the independent variables. We could thereby answer a simple counterfactual question: if every unit sat at the same place in its city’s population distribution and were subject to the trends suggested by the SEM estimation, how would average vaccination outcomes compare to the observed averages? Figure e4.2 illustrates expanded results of the simulations.

As we indicate in Section e2.2, this simulation approach contextualized disparities more comprehensively than interpreting coefficients alone. Table e4.2 and Figure e4.1 show that the outcomes’ estimated associations with percents Black and Hispanic were statistically insignificant in March and April; average vaccination outcomes did not change systematically with Black and Hispanic populations, conditional on vaccine priority populations, socioeconomic composition, and the spatial relationships specified in W . In isolation, these results suggest that economimc—not racial/ethnic—inequality explained variation in vaccination outcomes. By accounting for unequal distributions of SES and vaccine priority populations across racial/ethnic groups, however, the simulations revealed that the explanation is more complicated. Because economic inequality is racialized, areas with high Black and Hispanic populations lagged behind areas with high Asian and White populations—even though the coefficients for percents Black and Hispanic were insignificant and the latter was even slightly positive. Attending to direct and indirect channels of structural racism more accurately represented the inequality-generating process than focusing only on average conditional racial/ethnic disparities.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure e4.2:

Simulated COVID-19 vaccination levels by racial/ethnic and socioeconomic composition in the population age 15 and older of ZIP Codes across eight large U.S. cities, March and April 2021 (expanded)

Implementation

We first identified plausible values of the independent variables, listed in Table e4.4. Within each city, we identified low and high levels (the 10th and 90th percentiles) of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and White populations. Given these racial/ethnic compositions, we set plausible low and high values of the four SES variables. We identified the within-city 10th and 90th percentiles of the SES variables among units with populations within five percentile points of the within-city low and high levels for the given racial/ethnic group (the fifth through 15th and 85th through 95th percentiles). We set all other independent variables to their weighted averages within the same ranges. For example, in the iteration identified in Figure e4.2 as “High % Black / Low SES,” we assigned all units low values (10th percentile) for the SES variables and average values of other independent variables, among units with high Black populations (85th through 95th percentiles) within their respective cities.

Next, we simulated outcomes given the plausible values of the independent variables. For each combination of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic compositions, we set the variables for each unit in our data set to the corresponding within-city values in Table e4.4. (We assigned every unit within each city the same values for each independent variable in each iteration). For each unit, we then calculated the estimated values of the outcome under each scenario, using the parameter estimates from the full models in Table e4.2. We computed population-weighted means for the three outcomes under each hypothetical scenario.

Finally, we bootstrapped confidence intervals for the simulated sample means. We obtained 1,000 resamples of our original data set by sampling it with replacement.⁸⁹ We then adjusted the spatial weights matrix W accordingly for each resample. We assigned nearest neighbors according to h_i in the original sample, which maintained the spatial structure of the data across iterations. Next, we re-estimated the SEMs on each of the resamples. We simulated the outcome variables under each hypothetical population composition of interest by assigning each unit the corresponding value in Table e4.4 in the same manner as above. From the distribution of the 1,000 resulting population-weighted resample means for each outcome, we calculated pivot confidence intervals at the 95% level.⁹⁰ This bootstrap procedure yielded a non-parametric approximation of the uncertainty in the hypothetical outcomes.