Dataset Information

FQHC Designation and Safety Net Patient Revenue Associated with Primary Care Practice Capabilities for Access and Quality.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.

Objective

To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients.

Design

We analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018.

Participants

A total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians.

Main measures

Our key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not.

Key results

FQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001).

Conclusion

FQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

SUBMITTER: Lewis VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8481458 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

FQHC Designation and Safety Net Patient Revenue Associated with Primary Care Practice Capabilities for Access and Quality.

Lewis Valerie A VA Spivack Steven S Murray Genevra F GF Rodriguez Hector P HP

Journal of general internal medicine 20210803 10

<h4>Background</h4>Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared t ...[more]

PMID: 34346005

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide care to 30 million patients in the US and have shown better outcomes and processes than other practice types. Little is known about how the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to FQHC capabilities compared with other practices.ObjectiveTo compare postpandemic operational characteristics and capabilities of FQHCs with non-FQHC safety net practices and non-FQHC, non-safety net practices.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative survey conducted from June 2022 to February 2023 with an oversampling of safety net practices in the US included practice leaders working in stratified random selection of practices based on FQHC status, Area Deprivation Index category, and ownership type per a health care network dataset.ExposuresPractice type: FQHC vs non-FQHC safety net and non-FQHC practices.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care capabilities, including 2 measures of access and 11 composite measures.ResultsA total of 1245 practices (221 FQHC and 1024 non-FQHC) responded of 3498 practices sampled. FQHCs were more likely to be independently owned and have received COVID-19 funding. FQHCs and non-FQHC safety net practices were more likely to be in rural areas. FQHCs significantly outperformed non-FQHCs on several capabilities even after controlling for practice size and ownership, including behavioral health provision (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56), culturally informed services (mean score, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58), screening for social needs (mean score, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.39-0.47), social needs referrals (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57), social needs referral follow-up (mean score, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36), and shared decision-making and motivational interviewing training (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56). No differences were found in behavioral and substance use screening, care processes for patients with complex and high levels of need, use of patient-reported outcome measures, decision aid use, or after-hours access. Across all practices, most of the examined capabilities showed room for improvement.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this survey study suggest that FQHCs outperformed non-FQHC practices on important care processes while serving a patient population with lower incomes who are medically underserved compared with patients in other practice types. Legislation to expand funding for the FQHC program should improve services for underserved populations and target current non-FQHC safety net practices to serve these populations. Increased support for these practices could improve primary care for rural populations.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:BackgroundAdvanced use of health information technology (IT) functionalities can support more comprehensive, coordinated, and patient-centered primary care services. Safety net practices may benefit disproportionately from these investments, but it is unclear whether IT use in these settings has kept pace and what organizational factors are associated with varying use of these features.ObjectiveThe aim was to estimate advanced use of health IT use in safety net versus nonsafety net primary care practices. We explore domains of patient engagement, population health management (decision support and registries), and electronic information exchange. We examine organizational characteristics that may differentially predict advanced use of IT across these settings, with a focus on health system ownership and/or membership in an independent practice network as key factors that may indicate available incentives and resources to support these efforts.Research designWe conduct cross-sectional analysis of a national survey of physician practices (n=1776). We use logistic regression to predict advanced IT use in each of our domains based on safety net status and other organizational characteristics. We then use interaction models to assess whether ownership or network membership moderate the relationship between safety net status and advanced use of health IT.ResultsHealth IT use was common across primary care practices, but advanced use of health IT functionalities ranged only from 30% to 50% use. Safety net settings have kept pace with adoption of features for patient engagement and population management, yet lag in information exchange capabilities compared with nonsafety net practices (odds ratio=0.52 for federally qualified health centers, P<0.001; odds ratio=0.66 for other safety net, P=0.03). However, when safety net practices are members of a health system or practice network, health IT capabilities are comparable to nonsafety net sites.ConclusionsAll outpatient settings would benefit from improved electronic health record usability and implementation support that facilitates advanced use of health IT. Safety net practices, particularly those without other sources of centralized support, need targeted resources to maintain equitable access to information exchange capabilities.

Project description:Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n?=?185) or usual care (n?=?181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p?=?0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p?=?0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

Project description:ImportanceMany of the capabilities needed to deliver accessible, high-quality primary care have been defined, but little is known about how their implementation has changed in US practices over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic or about the factors associated with greater capabilities.ObjectiveTo describe US primary care practices' accessibility and capabilities and examine recent changes.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective cohort study across 2 surveys, in 2017 to 2018 and 2022 to 2023, among a national sample of primary care practice leaders in the US. Data were analyzed from January 2023 to September 2024.ExposuresDegree of integrated practice ownership and accountable care organization (ACO) participation.Main outcomes and measuresDifferences by practice ownership and ACO participation, and changes over time in access to care and care delivery capabilities. These were measured by composite scores of responses standardized to a scale of 0 to 100.ResultsThis analysis included 710 practices, of which 234 were independently owned, 105 were physician group owned, and 321 were hospital/health system owned in 2017 to 2018, and 68 practices reported no ACO participation, 107 joined between surveys, and 486 otherwise participated in ACOs. Access to care (measured as extended weekday or weekend hours) was reported to decline from the first survey in 2017 to 2018 to the second in 2022 to 2023. Hospital/health system practices and ACO participants had higher rates of extended weekday hours than their comparators in 2022 to 2023. Average capability scores increased from 51 to 54 (increase of 4 points [95% CI, 1-6 points]). There was wide variation in scores within all ownership and ACO participant or nonparticipant groups. Capability scores were higher on average for more integrated practices (for physician groups compared to independent practices, 12 points [95% CI, 5-19 points] in 2017-2018 and 12 points [95% CI, 7-16 points] in 2022-2023) and for ACO participants compared to nonparticipants (13-point difference [6 to 20] in 2017-2018 and 12-point difference [6 to 18] in 2022-2023).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, over the time period including the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care practices reported a decline in access to care, while average practice capabilities improved. Integrated practice ownership and ACO participation were both associated with better access and capability scores, suggesting that value-based payment and integrated care delivery support the development of higher-quality primary care. Variations across practices point to large opportunities for improvement overall and underscore the importance of incentives and structures as levers to improve primary care delivery.

Project description:Massachusetts' health care reform substantially decreased the percentage of uninsured residents. However, less is known about how reform affected access to care, especially according to insurance type.To assess access to care in Massachusetts after implementation of health care reform, based on insurance status and type.We surveyed a convenience sample of 431 patients presenting to the Emergency Department of Massachusetts' second largest safety net hospital between July 25, 2009 and March 20, 2010.Demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance coverage, measures of access to care and cost-related barriers to care.Patients with Commonwealth Care and Medicaid, the two forms of insurance most often newly-acquired under the reform, reported similar or higher utilization of and access to outpatient visits and rates of having a usual source of care, compared with the privately insured. Compared with the privately insured, a significantly higher proportion of patients with Medicaid or Commonwealth Care Type 1 (minimal cost sharing) reported delaying or not getting dental care (42.2 % vs. 27.1 %) or medication (30.0 % vs. 7.0 %) due to cost; those with Medicaid also experienced cost-related barriers to seeing a specialist (14.6 % vs. 3.5 %) or getting recommended tests (15.6 % vs. 5.9 %). Those with Commonwealth Care Types 2 and 3 (greater cost sharing) reported significantly more cost-related barriers to obtaining care than the privately insured (45.0 % vs. 16.0 %), to seeing a primary care doctor (25.0 % vs. 6.0 %) or dental provider (58.3 % vs. 27.1 %), and to obtaining medication (20.8 % vs. 7.0 %). No differences in cost-related barriers to preventive care were found between the privately and publicly insured.Access to care improved less than access to insurance following Massachusetts' health care reform. Many newly insured residents obtained Medicaid or state subsidized private insurance; cost-related barriers to access were worse for these patients than for the privately insured.

Project description:BackgroundResearch examining the connections between individual adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and how groupings of interrelated adversities are linked with subsequent health is scarce, limiting our understanding of risk during a period of rapid expansion of ACE screening in clinical practice. The study objective was to conduct a psychometric analysis to derive latent domains of ACEs and related life events and assess the association between each domain and health outcome.MethodsParticipants (3 months-11 years) were recruited from the University of California San Francisco Benioff's Children Hospital Oakland Primary Care Clinic. Children were screened with the Pediatric ACEs and Related Life Events Screener (PEARLS) (n = 340), which assessed 17 total ACEs and related life events, including forms of abuse, household challenges, and social risks. Domains were constructed using confirmatory factor analysis and associations between the three identified domains and 14 health outcomes were assessed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models.ResultsThree PEARLS domains were identified: Maltreatment (ω = 0.73, ɑ=0.87), Household Challenges (ω = 0.70, ɑ=0.82), and Social Context (ω = 0.55, ɑ=0.70). Measurement invariance was supported across both gender and screening format. All domains were associated with poorer general and behavioral health and stomachaches. Maltreatment and Social Context were additionally associated with eczema while only Social Context was associated with increased odds of reporting headaches and somatic symptoms.ConclusionIn an underserved, urban west-coast pediatric population, the PEARLS found three adversity domains of Maltreatment, Household Challenges, and Social Context that all had an independent statistically significant association with poorer child health. The results provide a timely and more nuanced representation of risk that can inform clinical practice and policy using more targeted resources and interventions.

Dataset Information

FQHC Designation and Safety Net Patient Revenue Associated with Primary Care Practice Capabilities for Access and Quality.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main measures

Key results

Conclusion

Publications

FQHC Designation and Safety Net Patient Revenue Associated with Primary Care Practice Capabilities for Access and Quality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets