Readiness of US Federally Qualified Health Centers to Provide HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ard KL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8561245 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Readiness of US Federally Qualified Health Centers to Provide HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis.
Ard Kevin L KL Uzoeghelu Ugochukwu U Bruno Jack J Lambert Cei C Mayer Kenneth H KH Davis John A JA Keuroghlian Alex S AS
Open forum infectious diseases 20210901 10
We report the results of a survey on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) perceptions, capacity, and barriers at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in high-HIV burden jurisdictions in the United States. Health care workers at FQHCs identified multiple barriers to, and strategies for, improving PrEP implementation. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To make them more responsive to their community's needs, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are required to have a governing board comprising at least 51 percent consumers. However, the extent to which consumer board members actually resemble the typical FQHC patient has not been assessed, which according to the political science literature on representation may influence the board's ability to represent the community. This mixed-methods study uses four years of data from the Health Resources and Services Administration, combined with Uniform Data System, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Area Resource File data, to describe and identify factors associated with the composition of FQHC governing boards. Board members are classified into one of three groups: nonconsumers, nonrepresentative consumers (who do not resemble the typical FQHC patient), and representative consumers (who resemble the typical FQHC patient). The analysis finds that a minority of board members are representative consumers, and telephone interviews with a stratified random sample of thirty FQHC board members confirmed the existence of significant socioeconomic gaps between consumer board members and FQHC patients. This may make FQHCs less responsive to the needs of the predominantly low-income communities they serve.
| S-EPMC5602556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision in U.S. health centers.DesignThe U.S. Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative designated health centers as the main healthcare system through which PrEP scale-up occurs. Health centers offer primary care to over 30 million disproportionately uninsured, racially or ethnically minoritized, and low-income patients. This study is the first to assess PrEP provision across health centers, including characteristics of clinics, patient populations, and policies associated with PrEP prescribing.MethodsThe Health Resources and Services Administration's Uniform Data System contained aggregate data on PrEP prescriptions and patient sociodemographics at health centers from January 1 through December 31, 2021, in 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and eight U.S. territories. We compared patient demographics and availability of Medicaid expansion and PrEP assistance programs at health centers that prescribed vs. those that did not prescribe PrEP.ResultsAcross 1375 health centers serving 30 193 278 patients, 79 163 patients were prescribed PrEP. Health centers that prescribed any PrEP had higher proportions of sexual, gender, racial, and ethnic minority patient populations compared with health centers that prescribed no PrEP. Compared with health centers that prescribed no PrEP, a higher proportion of health centers that prescribed PrEP were located in designated high-priority jurisdictions of the EHE initiative or states with Medicaid expansion or public PrEP assistance programs.ConclusionHealth centers are critical for scaling up PrEP in minoritized populations disproportionately affected by HIV, facilitated through federal and state-level policies. These findings highlight service gaps and inform future interventions to optimize PrEP implementation and support EHE initiative goals.
| S-EPMC10842666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To foster bottom-up innovations, health care organizations are leveraging interdisciplinary frontline innovation teams. These teams include workers across hierarchical levels and professional backgrounds, pooling diverse knowledge sources to develop innovations that improve patient and worker experiences and care quality, equity, and costs. Yet, these frontline innovation teams experience barriers, such as time constraints, being new to innovation, and team-based role hierarchies. We investigated the practices that such teams in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) used to overcome these barriers. Our 20-month study of two FQHC innovation teams provides one of the first accounts of how practices that sustained worker engagement in innovation and supported their ideas to implementation evolve over time. We also show the varied quantity of engagement practices used at different stages of the innovation process. At a time when FQHCs face pressure to innovate amid staff shortages, our study provides recommendations to support their work.
| S-EPMC11389058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study.MethodsThis study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability.DiscussionThe study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.
| S-EPMC4548813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is a need for early and equitable detection of cognitive impairment among older adults.ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence of unrecognized cognitive impairment among older adults receiving primary care from federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at 5 FQHCs providing primary care in Indianapolis, Indiana, between 2021 and 2023. Participants were adults aged 65 years and older, without a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia, or severe mental illness. Data analysis was performed from September 2023 to April 2024.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a diagnosis of dementia or MCI, as determined by an interdisciplinary clinical team using data from structured patient and study partner interviews, medical record reviews, and a detailed cognitive assessment, including neuropsychological testing. Differences between participants determined to have normal cognition, MCI, and dementia were assessed statistically using analysis of variance for continuous variables, χ2 or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables, or Fisher exact test alone when expected cell counts were 5 or less.ResultsA total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). One hundred eight participants (52.9%) were African American, 5 (2.5%) were Hispanic, 199 (97.5%) were not Hispanic, and 90 (44.1%) were White. The mean (SD) duration of education was 13.1 (2.6) years, and the mean (SD) Area Deprivation Index score was 78.3 (19.9), indicating a high level of neighborhood disadvantage. In total, 127 patients (62.3%) met the diagnostic criteria for MCI, 25 (12.3%) had dementia, and 52 (25.5%) had no cognitive impairment. Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals and after adjusting for age, sex, and education level, African American individuals were more than twice as likely to have MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.38-5.53; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that unrecognized cognitive impairment is ubiquitous among older adults from underrepresented, minoritized racial and ethnic groups and those who are socially vulnerable receiving primary care from FQHCs. To overcome the disparity in early detection of cognitive impairment, timely, equitable, scalable, and sustainable detection approaches need to be developed.
| S-EPMC11581540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe impact of Medicaid telehealth reimbursement policies on staffing and patient-centered care in the safety net are largely unknown but critical to successful and equitable access to telehealth.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize federally qualified health center (FQHC) staff and leadership's perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of Medicaid telehealth reimbursement policies.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from April 2022 to January 2024 with snowballed sampled participants consisting of FQHC leadership, clinicians, and administrative staff in 6 FQHCs representing the 5 boroughs in New York, New York.Main outcomes and measuresParticipants described telehealth experiences, including factors impending or contributing to staff turnover, patient satisfaction, and financial sustainability within FQHCs. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.ResultsOf 56 interviews, 26 participants (46.4%) were part of the leadership team, 18 (32.1%) were clinical staff, 8 (14.3%) were program support staff, 7 (12.5%) were enabling services staff, 3 (5.4%) were site directors, and 3 (5.4%) were another staff category. Three overarching themes characterized staff and leadership understanding of the impact of Medicaid telehealth reimbursement policies on FQHCs: (1) Medicaid telehealth policy design was perceived to exacerbate a workforce shortage, particularly among mental health care practitioners; (2) patients ranged in preferences and ability to access telehealth while FQHCs struggled to attain resources for telehealth; and (3) FQHC leadership envisioned a productive hybrid model where telehealth complements on-site care. FQHC staff and leadership reported opportunities to improve compliance, no-shows, and workflows through telehealth, but improvements in funding policy, such as payment parity and more grants that can be used to address telehealth infrastructure (eg, Internet access, equipment, and literacy), are urgently needed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, staff at FQHCs perceived the current telehealth Medicaid reimbursement policies in New York State as a factor that exacerbated inequities to accessing care, particularly for mental health needs. These findings indicate that although telehealth brings new opportunities to advance patient-centered care, there are serious challenges on the path toward equitable care because telehealth is not yet integrated into payment in a sustainable way.
| S-EPMC11822543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have increasingly participated in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs), one of the most widespread value-based programs. Although FQHCs may strengthen ACOs' ability to provide affordable care to diverse Medicare beneficiaries, evidence on ACOs' performance by FQHC participation is limited.ObjectivesTo compare beneficiary characteristics, utilization, expenditure, and quality between ACOs with and without FQHC participation and assess changes in ACO performance after including first FQHCs.Design, setting, and participantsUsing MSSP public use files, this cross-sectional study compared performance of ACOs that always had FQHC participation with ACOs that never had FQHC participation from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2022, supplemented with staggered difference-in-differences analyses of ACOs' first-time inclusion of FQHCs on performance measures. Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024.ExposureParticipation of FQHCs in the MSSP.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of ACO-assigned beneficiaries, utilization, expenditure, and quality per ACO-year.ResultsAmong 752 ACOs in the descriptive analysis, 140 ACOs always had at least 1 FQHC participant, whereas 612 ACOs never had FQHC participants. Compared with ACOs that never had FQHC participation, those that always had FQHC participation provided care to more socioeconomically disadvantaged beneficiaries (mean [SD] with dual eligibility, 2035.8 [2110.6] vs 1040.9 [1084.2] person-years; with disability, 3341.1 [3474.9] vs 1705.1 [1664.9] person-years; in racial and ethnic minoritized groups, 3690.6 [4118.4] vs 2515.1 [2762.9] person-years), with fewer primary care visits (mean [SD], 9956.6 [1926.3] vs 10 858.8 [2383.4] per 1000 person-years), more emergency department visits (mean [SD], 771.6 [190.9] vs 657.2 [160.0] per 1000 person-years), and lower levels of several quality measures. In the difference-in-differences analysis, 43 ACOs included FQHCs for the first time. Including first FQHCs was associated with increases of 872.9 dual-eligible (95% CI, 345.9-1399.8), 1137.6 disability (95% CI, 390.1-1885.1), and 1350.8 racial and ethnic minority (95% CI, 447.4-2254.1) person-years, with increases in rates of influenza immunization (5.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.4-10.4 pp), tobacco screening and cessation intervention (11.8 pp; 95% CI, 3.7-20.0 pp), and depression screening and follow-up (8.9 pp; 95% CI, 0.5-17.4 pp). No associations were observed between FQHC inclusion and utilization or expenditure.Conclusions and relevanceIn this repeated cross-sectional study, MSSP ACOs with FQHC participation served more socioeconomically disadvantaged Medicare beneficiaries than those without FQHC participation. The inclusion of first FQHCs was associated with increased rates of several preventive services without increasing costs. Participation of safety net practices appeared to improve access to ACOs among beneficiaries from underserved communities.
| S-EPMC11574694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEngaging frontline clinicians and staff in quality improvement is a promising bottom-up approach to transforming primary care practices. This may be especially true in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and similar safety-net settings where large-scale, top-down transformation efforts are often associated with declining worker morale and increasing burnout. Innovation contests, which decentralize problem-solving, can be used to involve frontline workers in idea generation and selection.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe the ideas that frontline clinicians and staff suggested via organizational innovation contests in a national sample of 54 FQHCs.InterventionsInnovation contests solicited ideas for improving care from all frontline workers-regardless of professional expertise, job title, and organizational tenure and excluding those in senior management-and offered opportunities to vote on ideas.ParticipantsA total of 1,417 frontline workers across all participating FQHCs generated 2,271 improvement opportunities.ApproachesWe performed a content analysis and organized the ideas into codes (e.g., standardization, workplace perks, new service, staff relationships, community development) and categories (e.g., operations, employees, patients).Key resultsIdeas from frontline workers in participating FQHCs called attention to standardization (n = 386, 17%), staffing (n = 244, 11%), patient experience (n = 223, 10%), staff training (n = 145, 6%), workplace perks (n = 142, 6%), compensation (n = 101, 5%), new service (n = 92, 4%), management-staff relationships (n = 82, 4%), and others. Voting results suggested that staffing resources, standardization, and patient communication were key issues among workers.ConclusionsInnovation contests generated numerous ideas for improvement from the frontline. It is likely that the issues described in this study have become even more salient today, as the COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating impacts on work environments and health/social needs of patients living in low-resourced communities. Continued work is needed to promote learning and information exchange about opportunities to improve and transform practices between policymakers, managers, and providers and staff at the frontlines.
| S-EPMC10593646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 340B program provides discounts on outpatient drugs to certain hospitals and federally supported clinics (covered entities) that can be used to generate revenue to fund safety net care. While numerous studies have found no association between 340B and safety net care provision for most hospital covered entities, less is known about whether federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), the largest group of covered entities after hospitals, use the program to enhance safety net care.ObjectiveTo assess whether a proxy for 340B revenue was associated with increased safety net care provision among FQHCs.Design and settingThis descriptive, retrospective cohort study examined care provided from 2005 to 2022 by 1468 FQHCs that submitted to the Health Resources and Services Administration Uniform Data System. FQHC and year-level fixed effects were included, as well as a control for differential Medicaid expansion over time. The data were analyzed between March and December 2023.ExposureOne-year lagged number of locations registered to dispense or administer 340B-discounted drugs (registered locations), which included child sites, in-house pharmacies, and contract pharmacies in the 340B Outpatient Pharmacy Affairs Database.Main outcomesNatural logarithm of patient volume by payer, low-income status, and use of enabling services. Natural logarithm of visits in which low-profit preventive services were provided.ResultsAn additional registered location was associated with increased patient volume, especially for uninsured (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%) and privately insured (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.2%-0.5%) patients and low-income (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%), unhoused (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.5%), and non-English-speaking (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.5%) patients. An additional registered location was associated with increased visits with an HIV test (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%), serum lead test (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.1%), seasonal influenza shot (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.5%), Papanicolaou smear (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%), and tobacco cessation counseling (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%). Across the study period, the average annual increase in locations was 1.5.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that there are statistically significant increases in the provision of low-profit but high-value preventive services and care to safety net populations (those who lack insurance, have a low income, or require enabling services) and that, like public hospitals, FQHCs might use 340B revenues to enhance safety net care. This finding may inform debates on the 340B program by supporting differential 340B reforms across hospital and nonhospital covered entities.
| S-EPMC11452821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFederally Qualified Health Centers serve 29.8 million low-income patients across the U.S., many of whom have unaddressed social risks. In 2019, for the first time, data on social risk screening capabilities were collected from every U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center. The objectives of this study were to describe the national rates of social risk screening capabilities across Federally Qualified Health Centers, identify organizational predictors of screening, and assess between-state heterogeneity.MethodsUsing a 100% sample of U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers (N=1,384, representing 29.8 million patients) from the 2019 Uniform Data System, the primary outcome was whether a Federally Qualified Health Center collected data on patients' social risk factors (yes/no). Summary statistics on the rates of social risk screening capabilities were generated in aggregate and by state. Linear probability models were then used to estimate the relationship between the probability of social risk screening and 7 key Federally Qualified Health Center characteristics (e.g., Federally Qualified Health Center size, Medicaid MCO contract, Medicaid accountable care organization presence). Data were analyzed in 2020‒2021.ResultsMost (71%) Federally Qualified Health Centers collected social risk data, with a between-state variation. The most common screener was the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets Risks and Experiences (43% of Federally Qualified Health Centers that screened), whereas 22% collected social risk data using a nonstandardized screener. After adjusting for other characteristics, Federally Qualified Health Centers with social risk screening capabilities served more total patients, were more likely to be located in a state with a Medicaid accountable care organization, and were less likely to have an MCO contract.ConclusionsThere has been widespread adoption of social risk screening tools across U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers, but between-state disparities exist. Targeting social risk screening resources to smaller Federally Qualified Health Centers may increase the adoption of screening tools.
| S-EPMC9035213 | biostudies-literature