Community Health Center Staff Perspectives on Financial Payments for Social Care.

Policy Points State and federal payers are actively considering strategies to increase the adoption of social risk screening and interventions in health care settings, including through the use of financial incentives. Activities related to social care in Oregon community health centers (CHCs) provided a unique opportunity to explore whether and how fee-for-service payments for social risk screening and navigation influence CHC activities. CHC staff, clinicians, and administrative leaders were often unaware of existing financial payments for social risk screening and navigation services. As currently designed, fee-for-service payments are unlikely to strongly influence CHC social care practices. CONTEXT: A growing crop of national policies has emerged to encourage health care delivery systems to ask about and try to address patients' social risks, e.g., food, housing, and transportation insecurity, in care delivery contexts. In this study, we explored how community health center (CHC) staff perceive the current and potential influence of fee-for-service payments on clinical teams' engagement in these activities. METHODS: We interviewed 42 clinicians, frontline staff, and administrative leaders from 12 Oregon CHC clinical sites about their social care initiatives, including about the role of existing or anticipated financial payments intended to promote social risk screening and referrals to social services. Data were analyzed using both inductive and deductive thematic analysis approaches. FINDINGS: We grouped findings into three categories: participants' awareness of existing or anticipated financial incentives, uses for incentive dollars, and perceived impact of financial incentives on social care activities in clinical practices. Lack of awareness of existing incentives meant these incentives were not perceived to influence the behaviors of staff responsible for conducting screening and providing referrals. Current or anticipated meaningful uses for incentive dollars included paying for social care staff, providing social services, and supporting additional fundraising efforts. Frontline staff reported that the strongest motivator for clinic social care practices was the ability to provide responsive social services. Clinic leaders/managers noted that for financial incentives to substantively change CHC practices would require payments sizable enough to expand the social care workforce as well. CONCLUSIONS: Small fee-for-service payments to CHCs for social risk screening and navigation services are unlikely to markedly influence CHC social care practices. Refining the design of financial incentives-e.g., by increasing clinical teams' awareness of incentives, linking screening to well-funded social services, and changing incentive amounts to support social care staffing needs-may increase the uptake of social care practices in CHCs.

What to Do When Everything Happens at Once: Analytic Approaches to Estimate the Health Effects of Co-Occurring Social Policies.

Social policies have great potential to improve population health and reduce health disparities. Increasingly, those doing empirical research have sought to quantify the health effects of social policies by exploiting variation in the timing of policy changes across places. Multiple social policies are often adopted simultaneously or in close succession in the same locations, creating co-occurrence that must be handled analytically for valid inferences. Although this is a substantial methodological challenge for researchers aiming to isolate social policy effects, only in a limited number of studies have researchers systematically considered analytic solutions within a causal framework or assessed whether these solutions are being adopted. We designated 7 analytic solutions to policy co-occurrence, including efforts to disentangle individual policy effects and efforts to estimate the combined effects of co-occurring policies. We used an existing systematic review of social policies and health to evaluate how often policy co-occurrence is identified as a threat to validity and how often each analytic solution is applied in practice. Of the 55 studies, only in 17 (31%) did authors report checking for any co-occurring policies, although in 36 studies (67%), at least 1 approach was used that helps address policy co-occurrence. The most common approaches were adjusting for measures of co-occurring policies; defining the outcome on subpopulations likely to be affected by the policy of interest (but not other co-occurring policies); and selecting a less-correlated measure of policy exposure. As health research increasingly focuses on policy changes, we must systematically assess policy co-occurrence and apply analytic solutions to strengthen studies on the health effects of social policies.

Financing Approaches to Social Prescribing Programs in England and the United States.

Policy Points The number of social prescribing practices, which aim to link patients with nonmedical services and supports to address patients' social needs, is increasing in both England and the United States. Traditional health care financing mechanisms were not designed to support social prescribing practices, and flexible payment approaches may not support their widespread adoption. Policymakers in both countries are shifting toward developing explicit financing streams for social prescribing programs. Consequently, we need an evaluation of them to assess their success in supporting both the acceptance of these programs and their impacts. Investment in community-based organizations and wider public services will likely be crucial to both the long-term effectiveness and the sustainability of social prescribing.

Applying Lessons From Behavioral Health Integration to Social Care Integration in Primary Care.

Interest and incentives are increasing around strategies whereby the health care sector can better identify and address patients' social and economic needs in the context of primary care delivery. This interest is likely to accelerate during the economic recession following the OVID-19 pandemic. Yet effective and sustainable strategies for integrating social care practices (eg, patient-facing social risk screening and activities to address identified needs) have not been clearly established. Lessons learned from more than 2 decades of research on behavioral health integration could be applied to efforts to integrate social care into primary care. In this article, we synthesize learnings from primary care and behavioral health care integration, and translate them into organizing principles with the goal of advancing social care integration practices to improve the health of both patients and communities.

Resource Brokering: Efforts to Assist Patients With Housing, Transportation, and Economic Needs in Primary Care Settings.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and policy makers are exploring the role of primary care in improving patients' social conditions, yet little research examines strategies used in clinical settings to assist patients with social needs. METHODS: Study used semistructured interviews with leaders and frontline staff at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programs used to address patients' social needs. Interviews focused on how organizations develop and implement case management-style programs to assist patients with social needs including staffing, assistance intensity, and use of referrals to community-based organizations (CBOs). RESULTS: Organizations used case management programs to assist patients with social needs through referrals to CBOs and regular follow-up with patients. About one-half incorporated care for social needs into established case management programs and the remaining described standalone programs developed specifically to address social needs independent of clinical needs. Referrals were the foundation for assistance and included preprinted resource lists, patient-tailored lists, and warm handoffs to the CBOs. While all organizations referred patients to CBOs, some also provided more intense services such as assistance completing patients' applications for services or conducting home visits. Organizations described 4 operational challenges in addressing patients' social needs: (1) effectively engaging CBOs; (2) obtaining buy-in from clinical staff; (3) considering patients' perspectives; and (4) ensuring program sustainability. CONCLUSION: As the US health care sector faces pressure to improve quality while managing costs, many health care organizations will likely develop or rely on case management approaches to address patients' social conditions. Health care organizations may require support to address the key operational challenges.Visual abstract.

Meanings and Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for Health Care Systems.

Policy Points Health care systems and policymakers in the United States increasingly use language related to social determinants of health in their strategies to improve health and control costs, but the terms used are often misunderstood, conflated, and confused. Greater clarity on key terms and the concepts underlying them could advance policies and practices related to social determinants of health-including by defining appropriate roles and limits of the health care sector in this multisector field.

Integrating Social and Medical Care: Could it Worsen Health and Increase Inequity?

As a result of a large and compelling body of evidence documenting the impacts of social determinants, such as income and education, on health outcomes, health care systems are beginning to incorporate social and economic risk data into health care delivery decisions. But there is a risk that some of these efforts could worsen health and widen health inequities. We highlight 3 examples- including recent policy changes in Medicaid, social needs, informed risk prediction models, and advances in precision medicine-where the inclusion of social risk information threatens to reduce care quality or health care access for some groups of patients. A new dialog is needed about both the opportunities and potential consequences of bringing information about patients' social circumstances into a market-based health care system.

Perspectives from the Society for Pediatric Research: interventions targeting social needs in pediatric clinical care.

The social determinants of health (SDoH) are defined by the World Health Organization as the "conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age." Within pediatrics, studies have highlighted links between these underlying social, economic, and environmental conditions, and a range of health outcomes related to both acute and chronic disease. Additionally, within the adult literature, multiple studies have shown significant links between social problems experienced during childhood and "adult diseases" such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension. A variety of potential mechanisms for such links have been explored including differential access to care, exposure to carcinogens and pathogens, health-affecting behaviors, and physiologic responses to allostatic load (i.e., toxic stress). This robust literature supports the importance of the SDoH and the development and evaluation of social needs interventions. These interventions are also driven by evolving economic realities, most importantly, the shift from fee-for-service to value-based payment models. This article reviews existing evidence regarding pediatric-focused clinical interventions that address the SDoH, those that target basic needs such as food insecurity, housing insecurity, and diminished access to care. The paper summarizes common challenges encountered in the evaluation of such interventions. Finally, the paper concludes by introducing key opportunities for future inquiry.

ICD Social Codes: An Underutilized Resource for Tracking Social Needs.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDH) data collected in health care settings could have important applications for clinical decision-making, population health strategies, and the design of performance-based incentives and penalties. One source for cataloging SDH data is the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). OBJECTIVE: To explore how SDH are captured with ICD Ninth revision SDH V codes in a national inpatient discharge database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data come from the 2013 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) National Inpatient Sample, a national stratified sample of discharges from 4363 hospitals from 44 US states. We estimate the rate of ICD-9 SDH V code utilization overall and by patient demographics and payer categories. We additionally estimate the rate of SDH V code utilization for: (a) the 5 most common reasons for hospitalization; and (b) the 5 conditions with the highest rates of SDH V code utilization. RESULTS: Fewer than 2% of overall discharges in the National Inpatient Sample were assigned an SDH V code. There were statistically significant differences in the rate of overall SDH V code utilization by age categories, race/ethnicity, sex, and payer (all P<0.001). Nevertheless, SDH V codes were assigned to <7% of discharges in any demographic or payer subgroup. SDH V code utilization was highest for major diagnostic categories related to mental health and alcohol/substance use-related discharges. CONCLUSIONS: SDH V codes are infrequently utilized in inpatient settings for discharges other than those related to mental health and alcohol/substance use. Utilization incentives will likely need to be developed to realize the potential benefits of cataloging SDH information.

Families' Perspectives on Social Services Navigation After Pediatric Urgent Care.

BACKGROUND: Interest is growing in clinic-based programs that screen for and intervene on patients' social risk factors, including housing, food, and transportation. Though several studies suggest these programs can positively impact health, few examine the mechanisms underlying these effects. This study explores pathways through which identifying and intervening on social risks can impact families' health. METHODS: This qualitative study was embedded in a randomized clinical trial that examined the health impacts of participation in a social services navigation program. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 English or Spanish-speaking caregivers of pediatric patients who had participated in the navigation program. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Caregivers described 3 pathways through which the navigation program affected overall child and/or caregiver health: 1) increasing families' knowledge of and access to social services; 2) helping families connect with health care services; and 3) providing emotional support that reduced caregiver isolation and anxiety. Participants suggested that navigation programs can influence health even when they do not directly impact resource access. DISCUSSION: Social care programs may impact health through multiple potential pathways. Program impacts seem to be mediated by the extent to which programs increase knowledge of and access to social and health care services and support positive relationships between families and program personnel.

Adjusting Clinical Plans Based on Social Context.

BACKGROUND: Social risk data collection is expanding in community health centers (CHCs). We explored clinicians' practices of adjusting medical care based on their awareness of patients' social risk factors-that is, changes they make to care plans to mitigate the potential impacts of social risk factors on their patients' care and health outcomes-in a set of Texas CHCs. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods. Surveys/interviews explored clinician perspectives on adjusting medical care based on patient social risk factors. Survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and inductive coding. RESULTS: Across 4 CHCs, we conducted 15 clinician interviews and collected 97 surveys. Interviews and surveys overall indicated support for adjustment activities. Two main themes emerged: 1) clinicians reported making frequent adjustments to patient care plans based on their awareness of patients' social contexts, while simultaneously expressing concerns about adjustment; and 2) awareness of patients' social risk factors, and clinician time, training, and experience all influenced clinician adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians at participating CHCs described routinely adjusting patient care plans based on their patients' social contexts. These adjustments were being made without specific guidelines or training. Standardization of adjustments may facilitate the contextualization of patient care through shared decision making to improve outcomes.

"Wanting the Best for Our Folks"-A Mixed Methods Analysis of Community Health Center Social Risk Screening Initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Many community health centers (CHC) are scaling social risk screening in response to growing awareness of the influence of social adversity on health outcomes and concurrent incentives for social risk data collection. We studied the implementation of social risk screening in Texas CHCs to inform best practices and understand equity implications. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods of 3 data sources. Using interviews and surveys with CHC providers and staff, we explored social risk screening practices to identify barriers and facilitators; we used electronic health record (EHR) data to assess screening reach and disparities in screening. RESULTS: Across 4 urban/suburban Texas CHCs, we conducted 27 interviews (15 providers/12 staff) and collected 97 provider surveys; 2 CHCs provided EHR data on 18,672 patients screened during the study period. Data revealed 2 cross-cutting themes: 1) there was broad support for social risk screening/care integration that was rooted in CHCs' mission and positionalities, and 2) barriers to social risk screening efforts were largely a result of limited time and staffing. Though EHR data showed screens per month and screens/encounters increased peri-pandemic (4.1% of encounters in 8/2019 to 46.1% in 2/2021), there were significant differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity and preferred language (P < .001). In surveys, 90.0% of surveyed providers reported incorporating social risk screening into patient conversations; 28.6% were unaware their clinic had an embedded screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: Study CHCs were in the early stages of standardizing social risk screening. Differences in screening reach by patient demographics raise concerns that social screening initiatives, which often serve as a path to resource/service connection, might exacerbate disparities. Overcoming barriers to reach, sustainability, and equity requires supports targeted to program design/development, workforce capacity, and quality improvement.

Advancing health equity through social care interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity. CONCLUSIONS: AHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

Implementation Support for a Social Risk Screening and Referral Process in Community Health Centers.

Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

A Missed Opportunity? How Health Care Organizations Engage Primary Care Clinicians in Formal Social Care Efforts.

Health care organizations increasingly recognize the impact of social needs on health outcomes. As organizations develop and scale efforts to address social needs, little is known about the optimal role for clinicians in providing social care. In this study, the authors aimed to understand how health care organizations involve clinicians in formal social care efforts. In 2019, the authors conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with administrators at 29 health care organizations. Interviews focused on the development and implementation of formal social care programs within the health care organization and the role of clinicians within those programs. A few administrators described formal roles for primary care clinicians in organizational efforts to deliver social care. Administrators frequently described programs that were deliberately structured to shield clinicians (eg, clinicians were not expected to review social risk screening results or be involved in addressing social needs). The authors identified 4 ways that administrators felt clinicians could meaningfully engage in social care programs: (1) discuss social risks to strengthen relationships with patients; (2) adjust clinical care follow-up plans based on social risks; (3) modify prescriptions based on social risks; and (4) refer patients to other care team members who can directly assist with social risks. Administrators were hesitant to increase primary care clinicians' responsibilities by tasking them with social care activities. Defining appropriate and scalable roles for clinicians along with adequate support from other care team members may increase the effectiveness of social care programs.

"Beyond Just a Supplement": Administrators' Visions for the Future of Virtual Primary Care Services.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adoption and implementation of virtual primary care services, and little is known about whether and how virtual care services will be provided after the pandemic ends. We aim to identify how administrators at health care organizations perceive the future of virtual primary care services. METHODS: In March-April of 2021, we conducted semistructured qualitative phone interviews with administrators at 17 health care organizations that ranged from multi-state nonfederal delivery systems to single-site primary care practices. Organizations differed in size, structure, ownership, and geography. We explore how health care administrators anticipate their organization will offer virtual primary care services after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. RESULTS: All interviewed administrators expected virtual primary care services to persist after the pandemic. We categorize expected impact of future virtual services as limited (n = 4); targeted to a narrow set of clinical encounters (n = 5); and a major shift in primary care delivery (n = 8). The underlying motivation expressed by administrators for providing virtual care services was to remain financially stable and competitive. This motivation can be seen in the 3 main goals described for their anticipated use of virtual services: (1) optimizing medical services; (2) enhancing the patient experience; and (3) increasing loyalty among patients. CONCLUSIONS: Health care organizations are considering how virtual primary care services can be used to improve patient outcomes, access to care, and convenience of care. To implement and sustain virtual primary care services, health care organizations will need long-term support from regulators and payers.

Heterogeneous treatment effects in social policy studies: An assessment of contemporary articles in the health and social sciences.

PURPOSE: Social policies are important determinants of population health but may have varying effects on subgroups of people. Evaluating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) of social policies is critical to determine how social policies will affect health inequities. Methods for evaluating HTEs are not standardized. Little is known about how often and by what methods HTEs are assessed in social policy and health research. METHODS: A sample of 55 articles from 2019 on the health effects of social policies were evaluated for frequency of reporting HTEs; for what subgroupings HTEs were reported; frequency of a priori specification of intent to assess HTEs; and methods used for assessing HTEs. RESULTS: A total of 24 (44%) studies described some form of HTE assessment, including by age, gender, education, race/ethnicity, and/or geography. Among studies assessing HTEs, 63% specified HTE assessment a priori, and most (71%) used descriptive methods such as stratification; 21% used statistical tests (e.g., interaction terms in a regression); and no studies used data-driven algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Although understanding HTEs could enhance policy and practice-based efforts to reduce inequities, it is not routine research practice. Increased evaluation of HTEs across relevant subgroups is needed.

Implementing Community Resource Referral Technology: Facilitators And Barriers Described By Early Adopters.

Health care organizations are increasingly implementing programs to address patients' social conditions. To support these efforts, new technology platforms have emerged to facilitate referrals to community social services organizations. To understand the functionalities of these platforms and identify the lessons learned by their early adopters in health care, we reviewed nine platforms that were on the market in 2018 and interviewed representatives from thirty-five early-adopter health care organizations. We identified key informants through solicited expert recommendations and web searches. With minor variations, all platforms in the sample provided similar core functionalities: screening for social risks, a resource directory, referral management, care coordination, privacy protection, systems integration, and reporting and analytics. Early adopters reported three key implementation challenges: engaging community partners, managing internal change processes, and ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. We conclude that early engagement with social services partners, funding models that support both direct and indirect costs, and stronger evidence of effectiveness together could help advance platform adoption.

Screening for Park Access during a Primary Care Social Determinants Screen.

While there is evidence that access to nature and parks benefits pediatric health, it is unclear how low-income families living in an urban center acknowledge or prioritize access to parks. METHODS: We conducted a study about access to parks by pediatric patients in a health system serving low-income families. Adult caregivers of pediatric patients completed a survey to identify and prioritize unmet social and economic needs, including access to parks. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to explore associations between lack of access to parks and sociodemographic variables. We also explored the extent to which access to parks competed with other needs. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 890 caregivers; 151 (17%) identified "access to green spaces/parks/playgrounds" as an unmet need, compared to 397 (45%) who endorsed "running out of food before you had money or food stamps to buy more". Being at or below the poverty line doubled the odds ( Odds ratio 1.96, 95% CI 1.16-3.31) of lacking access to a park (reference group: above the poverty line), and lacking a high school degree nearly doubled the odds. Thirty-three of the 151 (22%) caregivers who identified access to parks as an unmet need prioritized it as one of three top unmet needs. Families who faced competing needs of housing, food, and employment insecurity were less likely to prioritize park access (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinical interventions to increase park access would benefit from an understanding of the social and economic adversity faced by patients.