Access to Primary and Specialty Health Care in the California State Prison Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Amin A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9287750 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Access to Primary and Specialty Health Care in the California State Prison Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Amin Anita A Winetsky Daniel D Schpero William L WL
JAMA health forum 20220715 7
This cross-sectional study examines trends in referrals for and timely delivery of primary and specialty health care among individuals incarcerated in California state prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required a shift in health care delivery platforms, necessitating a new reliance on telemedicine.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether inequities are present in telemedicine use and video visit use for telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, a retrospective medical record review was conducted from March 16 to May 11, 2020, of all patients scheduled for telemedicine visits in primary care and specialty ambulatory clinics at a large academic health system. Age, race/ethnicity, sex, language, median household income, and insurance type were all identified from the electronic medical record.Main outcomes and measuresA successfully completed telemedicine visit and video (vs telephone) visit for a telemedicine encounter. Multivariable models were used to assess the association between sociodemographic factors, including sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language, and the use of telemedicine visits, as well as video use specifically.ResultsA total of 148 402 unique patients (86 055 women [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 56.5 [17.7] years) had scheduled telemedicine visits during the study period; 80 780 patients (54.4%) completed visits. Of 78 539 patients with completed visits in which visit modality was specified, 35 824 (45.6%) were conducted via video, whereas 24 025 (56.9%) had a telephone visit. In multivariable models, older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.83-0.88] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72-0.78] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70] for those aged ≥75 years), Asian race (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.73]), non-English language as the patient's preferred language (aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89-0.97]) were independently associated with fewer completed telemedicine visits. Older age (aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.76-0.82] for those aged 55-64 years; aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.74-0.83] for those aged 65-74 years; aOR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.46-0.53] for those aged ≥75 years), female sex (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.95]), Black race (aOR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.62-0.68]), Latinx ethnicity (aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and lower household income (aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.54-0.60] for income <$50 000; aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92], for $50 000-$100 000) were associated with less video use for telemedicine visits. These results were similar across medical specialties.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients scheduled for primary care and medical specialty ambulatory telemedicine visits at a large academic health system during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, older patients, Asian patients, and non-English-speaking patients had lower rates of telemedicine use, while older patients, female patients, Black, Latinx, and poorer patients had less video use. Inequities in accessing telemedicine care are present, which warrant further attention.
| S-EPMC7772717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care practices have experienced major strains during the COVID-19 pandemic, such that patients newly seeking care may face potential barriers to timely visits.ObjectiveTo quantify availability and wait times for new patient appointments in primary care and to describe how primary care practices are guiding patients with suspected COVID-19.DesignTrained callers conducted simulated patient calls to 800 randomly sampled primary care practices between September 14, 2020, and September 28, 2020.ParticipantsWe extracted complete primary care physician listings from large commercial insurance networks in four geographically dispersed states between September 10 and 14, 2020 (n=11,521). After excluding non-physician providers and removing duplicate phone numbers, we identified 2705 unique primary care physician practices from which we randomly sampled 200 practices in each region.Main measuresPrimary care appointment availability, median wait time in days, and practice guidance to patients suspecting COVID-19 infection.Key resultsAmong 56% of listed practices that had accurate contact information listed in the directory, 84% offered a new patient in-person or virtual appointment. Median wait time was 10 days (IQR 3-26 days). The most common guidance in case of suspected COVID-19 was clinician consultation, which was offered in 41% of completed calls. Callers were otherwise directed to on-site testing (14%), off-site testing (24%), a COVID-19 hotline (8%), or an urgent care/emergency department (12%), while 2% of practices had no guidance to offer.ConclusionsDespite resource constraints, most reachable primary care practices offered timely new patient appointments as well as direct COVID-19 care. Pandemic mitigation strategies should account for and support the central role of primary care practices in the community-based pandemic response.
| S-EPMC8075018 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC11806387 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8280956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Supported by the 10% set-aside funds in the Community Mental Health Block grant, distributed at the state level, coordinated specialty care (CSC) have been widely disseminated throughout the U.S. This study explores variations in the geographical accessibility of CSC programs by neighborhood level characteristics in Washington State. CSC locations were geocoded. Socioeconomic neighborhood deprivation (i.e., Area deprivation index) and rurality (i.e., Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes) were neighborhood level characteristics extracted from the 2018 American Community Survey. Geographic accessibility of CSC was assessed using a two-step floating catchment area technique and multilevel linear models were used to examine the association between specific neighborhood characteristics and geographic accessibility. The association between access and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods varied differentially by neighborhood rurality (an interaction effect). Model estimates indicated that the least deprived, metropolitan neighborhoods had the best access (M = 0.38; CI: 0.34, 0.42) and rural neighborhoods in the second most deprived quartile had the worst access (M = 0.16; CI: 0.11, 0.21) to CSC. There was a clear decrease in accessibility for more rural neighborhoods, regardless of other neighborhood characteristics. In conclusions, findings provide important insight into how resource distribution contributes to geographic disparities in access to CSC. The use of spatial analytic techniques has the potential to identify specific neighborhoods and populations where there is a need to expand and increase availability of CSC to ensure access to rural and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods.
| S-EPMC9119810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceClinician attitudes toward telehealth may impact utilization rates, and findings may differ based on specialty.ObjectiveTo determine whether clinician beliefs regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with the proportion of care delivered via video, phone, and in-person across specialties.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used a voluntary, anonymous survey conducted from August to September 2021 in the Department of Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System (VANEHS). Mental health (MH), primary care (PC), and specialty care (SC) clinicians were invited to participate. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022.ExposuresParticipation in a 32-item survey.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were clinicians' views on relative quality of video, phone, and in-person care; factors contributing to clinicians' modality choice; telehealth challenges; and clinician modality preferences and utilization when treating new and established patients.ResultsThere were 866 survey respondents (estimated 64% response rate); 52 respondents reported no video or phone telehealth use in the 3 months prior to survey completion and were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 814 respondents. Respondents were divided among MH (403 respondents [49.5%]), PC (153 respondents [18.8%]), and SC (258 respondents [31.7%]). Compared with PC and SC clinicians, MH clinicians rated the quality of video care the highest (eg, compared with in-person care with masks when treating new patients: χ2 = 147.8; P < .001) and were more likely to prefer video over phone when treating both new (χ2 = 26.6; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 100.4; P < .001) patients remotely. PC and SC clinicians were more likely to rate phone care as being at least equivalent in quality to video for both new (χ2 = 26.3; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 33.5; P < .001) patients. PC and SC clinicians were also more likely to endorse challenges of video care, including patient barriers and the inability to conduct a physical examination (χ2 = 292.0; P < .001). Most PC and SC clinicians either had no preference (46 PC respondents [36.2%]; 59 SC respondents [28.4%]) or preferred phone (36 PC respondents [28.3%]; 67 SC respondents [32.2%]) for remote care of established patients. Findings aligned with utilization rates within VANEHS, with MH clinicians conducting significantly more of their encounters via video (36 734 encounters [40.3%]) than PC (3201 encounters [3.9%]) and SC (1157 encounters [4.9%]) clinicians.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that clinician attitudes regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with utilization rates. Moving forward, clinician use of telehealth may be impacted by additional data regarding the relative effectiveness of modalities as well as improvements in video telehealth workflows.
| S-EPMC9175071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBroad consensus supports the use of primary care to address unmet need for mental health treatment.ObjectiveTo better understand whether primary care filled the gap when individuals were unable to access specialty mental health care.Design2018 mixed methods study with a national US internet survey (completion rate 66%) and follow-up interviews.ParticipantsPrivately insured English-speaking adults ages 18-64 reporting serious psychological distress that used an outpatient mental health provider in the last year or attempted to use a mental health provider but did not ultimately use specialty services (N = 428). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 30 survey respondents.Main measuresWhether survey respondents obtained mental health care from their primary care provider (PCP), and if so, the rating of that care on a 1 to 10 scale, with ratings of 9 or 10 considered highly rated. Interviews explored patient-reported barriers and facilitators to engagement and satisfaction with care provided by PCPs.Key resultsOf the 22% that reported they tried to but did not access specialty mental health care, 53% reported receiving mental health care from a PCP. Respondents receiving care only from their PCP were less likely to rate their PCP care highly (21% versus 48%; p = 0.01). Interviewees reported experiences with PCP-provided mental health care related to three major themes: PCP engagement, relationship with the PCP, and PCP role.ConclusionsPrimary care is partially filling the gap for mental health treatment when specialty care is not available. Patient experiences reinforce the need for screening and follow-up in primary care, clinician training, and referral to a trusted specialty consultant when needed.
| S-EPMC8734538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOften patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive poor quality care with limited access to pulmonologists. We tested a novel intervention, INtegrating Care After Exacerbation of COPD (InCasE), that improved patient outcomes after hospitalization for COPD. InCasE used population-based identification of patients for proactive e-consultation by pulmonologists, and tailored recommendations with pre-populated orders timed to follow-up with primary care providers (PCPs). Although adoption by PCPs was high, we do not know how PCPs experienced the intervention.ObjectiveOur objective was to assess PCPs' experience with proactive pulmonary e-consults after hospitalization for COPD.MethodsWe conducted a convergent mixed methods study among study PCPs at 2 medical centers and 10 outpatient clinics. PCPs underwent semi-structured interviews and surveys. We performed descriptive analyses on quantitative data and inductive and deductive coding based on prespecified themes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for qualitative data.Key resultsWe conducted 10 interviews and 37 PCPs completed surveys. PCPs perceived InCasE to be acceptable and feasible. Facilitators included the proactive consult approach to patient identification and order entry. PCPs also noted the intervention was respectful and collegial. PCPs had concerns regarding appropriateness related to an unclear role in communicating recommendations to patients. PCPs also noted a potential decrease in autonomy if overused.ConclusionThis evaluation indicates that a proactive e-consult intervention can be deployed to collaboratively manage the health of populations with COPD in a way that is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for primary care. Lessons learned from this study suggest the intervention may be transferable to other settings and specialties.
| S-EPMC9995235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:People in prison are particularly vulnerable to infectious disease due to close living conditions and the lack of protective equipment. As a result, public health professionals and prison administrators seek information to guide best practices and policy recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using latent profile analysis, we sought to characterize Texas prisons on levels of COVID-19 cases and deaths among incarcerated residents, and COVID-19 cases among prison staff. This observational study was a secondary data analysis of publicly available data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TBDJ) collected from March 1, 2020, until July 24, 2020. This project was completed in collaboration with the COVID Prison Project. We identified relevant profiles from the data: a low-outbreak profile, a high-outbreak profile, and a high-death profile. Additionally, current prison population and level of employee staffing predicted membership in the high-outbreak and high-death profiles when compared with the low-outbreak profile. Housing persons at 85% of prison capacity was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 infection and death. Implementing this 85% standard as an absolute minimum should be prioritized at prisons across the USA.
| S-EPMC7747775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Correctional institutions nationwide are seeking to mitigate Covid-19-related risks. To quantify changes to California's prison population since the pandemic began and identify risk factors for Covid-19 infection. We described residents' demographic characteristics, health status, Covid-19 risk scores, room occupancy, and labor participation. We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the association between rates of Covid-19 infection and room occupancy and out-of-room labor, respectively. California state prisons (March 1-October 10, 2020). Residents of California state prisons. Changes in the incarcerated population's size, composition, housing, and activities. For the risk factor analysis, the exposure variables were room type (cells vs dormitories) and labor participation (any room occupant participating in the prior 2 weeks) and the outcome variable was incident Covid-19 case rates. The incarcerated population decreased 19.1% (119,401 to 96,623) during the study period.On October 10, 2020, 11.5% of residents were aged ≥60, 18.3% had high Covid-19 risk scores, 31.0% participated in out-of-room labor, and 14.8% lived in rooms with ≥10 occupants. Nearly 40% of residents with high Covid-19 risk scores lived in dormitories. In 9 prisons with major outbreaks (6,928 rooms; 21,750 residents), dormitory residents had higher infection rates than cell residents (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.51 95%CI, 2.25-2.80) and residents of rooms with labor participation had higher rates than residents of other rooms (AHR, 1.56; 95%CI, 1.39-1.74). Inability to measure density of residents' living conditions or contact networks among residents and staff. Despite reductions in room occupancy and mixing, California prisons still house many medically vulnerable residents in risky settings. Reducing risks further requires a combination of strategies, including rehousing, decarceration, and vaccination. Horowitz Family Foundation; National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship; Open Society Foundations.
| S-EPMC7987024 | biostudies-literature