"How Do I Prepare for This?" Patient Perspectives on Providers' Employment-related Support During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers can offer employment-related support to pregnant patients by providing information about occupational risks and benefits, discussing adjustments, and/or completing paperwork to help patients obtain accommodations or benefits, but little research has examined whether and how this support is provided. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 20 adults who had been employed while pregnant within the 5 years preceding data collection. Eligible participants had low incomes, were hourly wage earners, or were employed in service or retail occupations. Applied thematic analysis was used to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: People who had been employed while pregnant described a range of experiences during that time, including physical and psychological demands from work, lack of access to appropriate accommodations, difficulties combining breastfeeding with work, and work-related challenges accessing health care. Participants described four primary roles that health care providers played: 1) completing paperwork needed to apply for benefits or receive work modification; 2) providing information about how to mitigate employment-related risks; 3) providing referrals to social or medical services; and 4) advocating for patients to ensure receipt of accommodations, resources, and information. Strategies identified by patients that could be enacted within health care to help them better navigate the work-pregnancy interface include increasing appointment flexibility, providing information about work-related risks and benefits programs and referrals to legal support, and helping providers to understand and support their patients' individual work-related concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers have a critical role to play in supporting employed pregnant people to achieve flexibility in managing their work and to be active participants in discussions about recommended workplace accommodations.

Unwinding of Continuous Medicaid Coverage Among Patients at Community Health Centers.

This retrospective cohort study uses data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network to assess patterns of Medicaid disenrollment during the first 6 months after the end of continuous enrollment.

Landscape of Pregnancy Care in US Community Health Centers.

PURPOSE: Community health centers (CHCs) provide critical health care access for people who experience high risks during and after pregnancy, however it is unclear to what extent they provide prenatal care. This study seeks to describe clinic and patient characteristics associated with longitudinal prenatal care delivery in CHC settings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized electronic health record (EHR) data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network (ADVANCE) between 2018 to 2019 to describe prenatal care provision among CHCs (n = 408), and pregnant CHC patients (n = 28,578) and compared characteristics of patients who received longitudinal prenatal care at CHCs versus those who did not. RESULTS: 41% of CHCs provided longitudinal prenatal care; these CHCs were more likely to be larger, have multidisciplinary teams, and serve higher proportions of nonwhite or non-English speaking patients. Patients who received longitudinal prenatal care at CHCs were racially and ethnically diverse and many had comorbidities. Patients who received longitudinal prenatal care at CHCs (compared with pregnant patients who did not) were more likely to be white or Latinx and more likely to have non-English language preference. CONCLUSIONS: Many CHCs in this national network provide prenatal care and serve pregnant patients at high risk of pregnancy-related complications, including people of color, those with low income, and those with comorbidities. CHCs provide critical access to care for vulnerable populations and will be an important partner in work addressing inequities in maternal morbidity and mortality.

Contraceptive Method Switching and Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Removal in U.S. Safety Net Clinics, 2016-2021.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of contraceptive method switching and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal in a large network of community health centers. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using individual-level electronic health record data from 489 clinics in 20 states from 2016 to 2021. We used logistic regression models, including individual-, clinic-, and state-level covariates, to calculate adjusted odds ratios and predicted probabilities of any observed contraceptive method switching and LARC removal among those with baseline incident LARC, both over 4-year time periods. RESULTS: Among 151,786 patients with 513,753 contraceptive encounters, 22.1% switched to another method at least once over the 4-year observation period, and switching patterns were varied. In patients with baseline LARC, the adjusted predicted probability of switching was 19.0% (95% CI 18.0-20.0%) compared with patients with baseline moderately effective methods (16.2%, 95% CI 15.1-17.3%). The adjusted predicted probability of switching was highest among the youngest group (28.6%, 95% CI 25.8-31.6% in patients aged 12-14 years) and decreased in a dose-response relationship by age to 8.4% (95% CI 7.4-9.4%) among patients aged 45-49 years. Latina and Black race and ethnicity, public or no insurance, and baseline Title X clinic status were all associated with higher odds of switching at least once. Among baseline LARC users, 19.4% had a removal (to switch or discontinue) within 1 year and 30.1% within 4 years; 97.6% of clinics that provided LARC also had evidence of a removal. CONCLUSION: Community health centers provide access to method switching and LARC removal. Contraceptive switching and LARC removal are common, and clinicians should normalize switching and LARC removal among patients.

Assessing Area-Level Deprivation as a Proxy for Individual-Level Social Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Concerns about the opportunity costs of social screening initiatives have led some healthcare organizations to consider using social deprivation indices (area-level social risks) as proxies for self-reported needs (individual-level social risks). Yet, little is known about the effectiveness of such substitutions across different populations. METHODS: This analysis explores how well the highest quartile (cold spot) of three different area-level social risk measures-the Social Deprivation Index, Area Deprivation Index, and Neighborhood Stress Score-corresponds with six individual-level social risks and three risk combinations among a national sample of Medicare Advantage members (N=77,503). Data were derived from area-level measures and cross-sectional survey data collected between October 2019 and February 2020. Agreement between individual and individual-level social risks, sensitivity values, specificity values, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values was calculated for all measures in summer/fall 2022. RESULTS: Agreement between area and individual-level social risks ranged from 53% to 77%. Sensitivity for each risk and risk category never exceeded 42%; specificity values ranged from 62% to 87%. Positive predictive values ranged from 8% to 70%, and negative predictive values ranged from 48% to 93%. There were modest performance discrepancies across area-level measures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide additional evidence that area-level deprivation indices may be inconsistent indicators of individual-level social risks, supporting policy efforts to promote individual-level social screening programs in healthcare settings.

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.

Partner-developed electronic health record tools to facilitate social risk-informed care planning.

OBJECTIVE: Increased social risk data collection in health care settings presents new opportunities to apply this information to improve patient outcomes. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support these applications. We conducted a participatory engagement process to develop electronic health record (EHR)-based CDS tools to facilitate social risk-informed care plan adjustments in community health centers (CHCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified potential care plan adaptations through systematic reviews of hypertension and diabetes clinical guidelines. The results were used to inform an engagement process in which CHC staff and patients provided feedback on potential adjustments identified in the guideline reviews and on tool form and functions that could help CHC teams implement these suggested adjustments for patients with social risks. RESULTS: Partners universally prioritized tools for social risk screening and documentation. Additional high-priority content included adjusting medication costs and changing follow-up plans based on reported social risks. Most content recommendations reflected partners' interests in encouraging provider-patient dialogue about care plan adaptations specific to patients' social needs. Partners recommended CDS tool functions such as alerts and shortcuts to facilitate and efficiently document social risk-informed care plan adjustments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CDS tools were designed to support CHC providers and staff to more consistently tailor care based on information about patients' social context and thereby enhance patients' ability to adhere to care plans. While such adjustments occur on an ad hoc basis in many care settings, these are among the first tools designed both to systematize and document these activities.

Work as a social risk factor in pregnancy: A systematic review of screening practices related to working conditions and family leave among pregnant adults.

BACKGROUND: Paid family leave and working conditions are components of employment quality-a key social determinant of health across the life course, particularly during pregnancy. Increased research on prenatal social risk screening has not extended to employment quality. The objective of this systematic review was to identify prenatal screening practices and interventions in health care settings that address employment and working conditions as social risk factors among pregnant adults and to describe their properties and key findings. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, EMBASE, and the SIREN Evidence and Resource Library for studies published through February 14, 2022. We selected multiple search terms related to four domains: (1) employment or working conditions; (2) screening; (3) health care settings; and (4) pregnancy or maternal health. RESULTS: Of the 2317 unique titles and abstracts that were potentially relevant, eight articles met all inclusion criteria and focused on pregnant populations. The content of identified screening practices varied substantially, highlighting the multiple ways employment is conceptualized as a potential risk factor. Few studies included multidimensional measures of employment to assess working conditions, which may be particularly relevant during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that screening for employment as a social risk factor does not regularly occur in prenatal care. Although pragmatic properties of the screening tools we assessed are promising, tools seldom examine the multidimensional nature of work. Understanding the principal intent of screening for employment prenatally could provide greater opportunity to collect and interpret contextual factors that influence how both providers and patients respond to social risk.

Area-level social determinants of health and individual-level social risks: Assessing predictive ability and biases in social risk screening.

Introduction: Area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) and individual-level social risks are different, yet area-level measures are frequently used as proxies for individual-level social risks. This study assessed whether demographic factors were associated with patients being screened for individual-level social risks, the percentage who screened positive for social risks, and the association between SDoH and patient-reported social risks in a nationwide network of community-based health centers. Methods: Electronic health record data from 1,330,201 patients with health center visits in 2021 were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression. Associations between patient characteristics, screening receipt, and screening positive for social risks (e.g., food insecurity, housing instability, transportation insecurity) were assessed. The predictive ability of three commonly used SDoH measures (Area Deprivation Index, Social Deprivation Index, Material Community Deprivation Index) in identifying individual-level social risks was also evaluated. Results: Of 244,155 (18%) patients screened for social risks, 61,414 (25.2%) screened positive. Sex, race/ethnicity, language preference, and payer were associated with both social risk screening and positivity. Significant health system-level variation in both screening and positivity was observed, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.55 for social risk screening and 0.38 for positivity. The three area-level SDoH measures had low accuracy, sensitivity, and area under the curve when used to predict individual social needs. Conclusion: Area-level SDoH measures may provide valuable information about the communities where patients live. However, policymakers, healthcare administrators, and researchers should exercise caution when using area-level adverse SDoH measures to identify individual-level social risks.

Adjusting for Patient Economic/Access Issues in a Hypertension Quality Measure.

INTRODUCTION: The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have proposed adjusting hypertension-related care quality measures by excluding patients with economic/access issues from the denominator of rate calculations. No research to date has explored the methods to operationalize this recommendation or how to measure economic/access issues. This study applied and compared different approaches to populating these denominator exceptions. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 2019 were used in 2021 to calculate hypertension control rates in 84 community health centers. A total of 10 different indicators of patient economic/access barriers to care were used as denominator exclusions to calculate and then compare adjusted quality measure performance. Data came from a nonprofit health center‒controlled network that hosts a shared electronic health record for community health centers located in 22 states. RESULTS: A total of 5 of 10 measures yielded an increase in adjusted hypertension control rates in ≥50% of clinics (average rate increases of 0.7-3.71 percentage points). A total of 3 of 10 measures yielded a decrease in adjusted hypertension control rates in >50% of clinics (average rate decreases of 1.33-13.82 percentage points). A total of 5 measures resulted in excluding >50% of the clinic's patient population from quality measure assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in clinic-level hypertension control rates after adjustment differed depending on the measure of economic/access issue. Regardless of the exclusion method, changes between baseline and adjusted rates were small. Removing community health center patients experiencing economic/access barriers from a hypertension control quality measure resulted in excluding a large proportion of patients, raising concerns about whether this calculation can be a meaningful measure of clinical performance.

US "Safety Net" Clinics Provide Access to Effective Contraception for Adolescents and Young Women, 2017-2019.

Objectives. To describe patterns of providing moderately effective versus the most effective contraception and of providing implants versus intrauterine devices in US community health centers. Methods. We conducted a historical cohort study (2017-2019). Outcomes were woman-level receipt of most effective contraception (long-acting reversible contraception; implants and intrauterine devices) or moderately effective contraception. We used logistic regression to identify patient and clinic factors associated with providing (1) most versus moderately effective methods, and (2) implants versus intrauterine devices. We calculated adjusted probabilities for both outcomes by age group. Results. We included 199 652 events of providing contraception to 114 280 women in 410 community health centers. Adjusted probabilities were similar across age groups for moderately versus most effective methods. However, the adjusted marginal means for receiving an implant compared with an intrauterine device were highest for adolescents (15-17 years: 78.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 75.6%, 80.6%]; 18-19 years: 69.5% [95% CI = 66.7%, 72.3%]). Women's health specialists were more likely to provide most versus moderately effective contraception. Conclusions. Community health centers are an important access point for most effective contraception for women of all ages. Adolescents are more likely to use implants than intrauterine devices. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S5):S555-S562. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306913).

Cross-Sectional Associations: Social Risks and Diabetes Care Quality, Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Social risks (e.g., food/transportation insecurity) can hamper type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) self-management, leading to poor outcomes. To determine the extent to which high-quality care can overcome social risks' health impacts, this study assessed the associations between reported social risks, receipt of guideline-based T2DM care, and T2DM outcomes when care is up to date among community health center patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of adults aged ≥18 years (N=73,484) seen at 186 community health centers, with T2DM and ≥1 year of observation between July 2016 and February 2020. Measures of T2DM care included up-to-date HbA1c, microalbuminuria, low-density lipoprotein screening, and foot examination, and active statin prescription when indicated. Measures of T2DM outcomes among patients with up-to-date care included blood pressure, HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein control on or within 6‒12 months of an index encounter. Analyses were conducted in 2021. RESULTS: Individuals reporting transportation or housing insecurity were less likely to have up-to-date low-density lipoprotein screening; no other associations were seen between social risks and clinical care quality. Among individuals with up-to-date care, food insecurity was associated with lower adjusted rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 75%, p<0.001), and transportation insecurity was associated with lower rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 74%, p=0.005), blood pressure (74% vs 72%, p=0.025), and low-density lipoprotein (61% vs 57%, p=0.009) than among those with no reported need. CONCLUSIONS: Community health center patients received similar care regardless of the presence of social risks. However, even among those up to date on care, social risks were associated with worse T2DM control. Future research should identify strategies for improving HbA1c control for individuals with social risks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03607617.

Title X Improved Access To Most Effective And Moderately Effective Contraception In US Safety-Net Clinics, 2016-18.

Community health centers are a crucial source of health care for reproductive-age women. Some community health centers receive funding from the federal Title X program, which provides funding for family planning services for low-income women. We describe the provision of the most effective (intrauterine devices and implants) and moderately effective (short-acting hormonal methods) contraceptive methods in a large network of 384 community health center clinics across twenty states in 2016-18. Title X clinics provided more most and moderately effective contraception at all time points and for all age groups (adolescent, young adult, and adult). They provided 52 percent more of the most effective contraceptives to women at risk for pregnancy than clinics not funded by Title X. This finding was especially notable for adolescents (58 percent more). Title X clinics play a key role in access to effective contraception across the US safety net. Strengthening the Title X program should continue to be a policy priority for public health for the Biden-Harris administration.

Clinic factors associated with utilization of a pregnancy-intention screening tool in community health centers.

OBJECTIVE: Routine pregnancy-intention screening in the primary care setting is a promising practice to help patients achieve their reproductive goals. We aim to describe the utilization of a pregnancy-intention screening tool integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) of a national network of community health centers (CHCs) and identify clinic-level factors associated with tool use. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a clinic-level retrospective observational study to assess tool utilization during the first 3 years after the tool was made available in the EHR (November 2015 to October 2018). We describe characteristics of clinics with higher tool utilization (≥90th percentile) versus lower utilization (<90th percentile) and the types of providers who used the tool. We then employ negative binomial regression to identify independent clinic-level factors associated with tool utilization. RESULTS: Across 194 clinics in our study sample which served 289,754 eligible female patients, the tool was used for 113,116 (39%). Medical assistants performed 60.3% of screenings and clinicians performed 11.2%. CHCs with higher tool utilization rates were more likely to be located in rural settings (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07-2.87) and serve patient populations with higher proportions of women (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41) and lower proportions of patients with non-English language preference (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Many health centers utilized pregnancy-intention screening after an EHR-based tool was made available, though overall screening rates were low. IMPLICATIONS: Additional study of implementation strategies and effectiveness of pregnancy-intention screening tools is needed. Implementation of future pregnancy-intention screening interventions must be tailored to address clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening.

Documenting New Ways of Delivering Care Under Oregon's Alternative Payment and Advanced Care Model.

BACKGROUND: The fee-for-service reimbursement system that dominates health care throughout the United States links payment to a billable office visit with a physician or advanced practice provider. Under Oregon's Alternative Payment and Advanced Care Model (APCM), initiated in 2013, participating community health centers (CHCs) received per-member-per-month payments for empaneled Medicaid patients in lieu of standard fee-for-service Medicaid payments. With Medicaid revenue under APCM no longer tied solely to the volume of visits, the Oregon Health Authority needed a way to document the full range of care and services that CHCs were providing to their patients, including nontraditional patient encounters taking place outside of traditional face-to-face visits with a billable provider. Toward this end, program leadership defined 18 visit and nonvisit-based care activities-"Care Services That Engage Patients" (Care STEPs)-that APCM CHCs were asked to document in the electronic health record to demonstrate continued empanelment. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in rates of traditional face-to-face office visits and Care STEPs documentation among CHCs involved in the first 3 phases of APCM implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study population included the 9 CHCs involved in the first 3 phases of APCM implementation. Using data from the electronic health record, quarterly summary rates for office visits and Care STEPs were calculated for the first 18 quarters of implementation (March 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017). RESULTS: Among participating CHCs, the mean rate of face-to-face visits with billable providers declined from 635 ± 128 to 461 ± 109 visits/1000 patients/quarter (mean difference, -174; 95% CI, -255, -94). Care STEPs documentation increased from 831 ± 174 to 1017 ± 369 Care Steps/1000 patients/quarter, but the difference was not statistically significant. Care STEPs within the category of New Visit Types were documented most frequently. There were significant increases in documentation of Patient Care Coordination and Integration and a small, albeit significant, increase in Reducing Barriers to Health. There was a significant decline in the documentation of Care STEPs by physicians and advanced practice providers an increase in documentation by ancillary staff. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that APCM is increasing CHCs' capacity to experiment with new ways of providing care beyond the traditional face-to-face office visit with a physician or advanced practice provider. However, CHCs may choose different ways to change the delivery of care and some CHCs have implemented these changes more quickly than others. Future mixed-methods research is needed to understand barriers and facilitators to changing the delivery of care after APCM implementation.

The impact of capitated payment on preventive care utilization in community health clinics.

Only half of the United States population regularly receives recommended preventive care services. Alternative payment models (e.g., a per-member-per-month capitated payment model) may encourage the delivery of preventive services when compared to a fee-for-service visitbased model; however, evaluation is lacking in the United States. This study assesses the impact of implementing Oregon's Alternative Payment Methodology (APM) on orders for preventive services within community health centers (CHCs). This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record data from the OCHIN, Inc., 2012-2018, analyzed in 2018-2019. Twenty-seven CHCs which implemented APM in 2013-2016 were compared to six non-APM CHCs. Clinic-level quarterly rates of ordering nine preventive services in 2012-2018 were calculated. For each phase and preventive service, we used difference-in-differences analysis to assess the APM impact on ordering preventive care. We found greater increases for APM CHCs compared to non-APM CHCs for orders of mammograms (difference-in-differences estimates (DDs) across four phases:1.69-2.45). Both groups had decreases in ordering cervical cancer screenings, however, APM CHCs had smaller decreases (DDs:1.62-1.93). The APM CHCs had significantly greater decreases in influenza vaccinations (DDs:0.17-0.32). There were no consistent significant differences in pre-post changes in APM vs. non-APM CHCs for cardiometabolic risk screenings, smoking status and depression assessments. There was nonsignificant change in the proportion of nontraditional encounters in APM clinics compared to controls. Transition from fee-for-service to an APM did not negatively impact delivery of preventive care. Further studies are needed to understand how to change encounter structures to best deliver recommended preventive care.

Comparison of Community-Level and Patient-Level Social Risk Data in a Network of Community Health Centers.

Importance: Responding to the substantial research on the relationship between social risk factors and health, enthusiasm has grown around social risk screening in health care settings, and numerous US health systems are experimenting with social risk screening initiatives. In the absence of standard social risk screening recommendations, some health systems are exploring using publicly available community-level data to identify patients who live in the most vulnerable communities as a way to characterize patient social and economic contexts, identify patients with potential social risks, and/or to target social risk screening efforts. Objective: To explore the utility of community-level data for accurately identifying patients with social risks by comparing the social deprivation index score for the census tract where a patient lives with patient-level social risk screening data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study using patient-level social risk screening data from the electronic health records of a national network of community health centers between June 24, 2016, and November 15, 2018, linked to geocoded community-level data from publicly available sources. Eligible patients were those with a recorded response to social risk screening questions about food, housing, and/or financial resource strain, and a valid address of sufficient quality for geocoding. Exposures: Social risk screening documented in the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Community-level social risk was assessed using census tract-level social deprivation index score stratified by quartile. Patient-level social risks were identified using food insecurity, housing insecurity, and financial resource strain screening responses. Results: The final study sample included 36 578 patients from 13 US states; 22 113 (60.5%) received public insurance, 21 181 (57.9%) were female, 17 578 (48.1%) were White, and 10 918 (29.8%) were Black. Although 6516 (60.0%) of those with at least 1 social risk factor were in the most deprived quartile of census tracts, patients with social risk factors lived in all census tracts. Overall, the accuracy of the community-level data for identifying patients with and without social risks was 48.0%. Conclusions and Relevance: Although there is overlap, patient-level and community-level approaches for assessing patient social risks are not equivalent. Using community-level data to guide patient-level activities may mean that some patients who could benefit from targeted interventions or care adjustments would not be identified.

The Impact of Social and Clinical Complexity on Diabetes Control Measures.

PURPOSE: In an age of value-based payment, primary care providers are increasingly scrutinized on performance metrics that assess quality of care, including the outcomes of their patient population in key areas such as diabetes control. Although such measures often adjust for patient clinical risk factors or clinical complexity, most do not account for the social complexity of patient populations, despite research demonstrating the strong association between social factors and health. METHODS: Using patient electronic health record data from 2 large community health center networks serving safety net patients, we assessed the effect of both clinical and social risk factors on poor glucose control among diabetics. Logistic regression results were used to estimate the impact of adjusting for both clinical and social complexity on provider performance metrics. Clinical complexity was measured at the patient-level using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Social complexity was measured at the community-level using the Social Deprivation Index. RESULTS: Clinical complexity alone was not consistently associated with poor diabetes control (ie, HbA1c > 9%) in diabetic patients with HbA1c testing during the study period. However, increasing social complexity was significantly associated with higher rates of poor diabetic control in both cohorts. After adding adjustment for social complexity down to the national median score, our models suggest that approximately 25% of providers would have 1 to 2% improvement in the assessment of their diabetes control measures, with 45% showing a 2 to 5% improvement, and 5% showing more than a 5% improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Providers caring for patients with greater social risk factors may benefit from having their performance metrics adjusted for the social complexity of their patient populations.

A Medicaid Alternative Payment Model Program In Oregon Led To Reduced Volume Of Imaging Services.

The patient-centered medical home model aspires to fundamentally restructure care processes, but a volume-based payment system may hinder such transformations. In 2013 Oregon's Medicaid program changed its reimbursement of traditional primary care services for selected community health centers (CHCs) from a per visit to a per patient rate. Using Oregon claims data, we analyzed the price-weighted volume of care for five service areas: traditional primary care services, including imaging, tests, and procedures; other services provided by CHCs that were carved out from the payment reform; emergency department visits; inpatient services; and other services of non-CHC providers. We further subdivided traditional primary care services using Berenson-Eggers Type of Service categories of care. We compared participating and nonparticipating CHCs in Oregon before and after the payment model was implemented. The payment reform was associated with a 42.4 percent relative reduction in price-weighted traditional primary care services, driven fully by decreased use of imaging services. Other outcomes remained unaffected. Oregon's initiative could provide lessons for other states interested in using payment reform to advance the patient-centered medical home model for the Medicaid population.

Evaluation of Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act and Contraceptive Care in US Community Health Centers.

Importance: Use of effective contraception decreases unintended pregnancy. It is not known whether Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act increased use of contraception for women who are underserved in the US health care safety net. Objective: To evaluate the association of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act with changes in use of contraception among patients at risk of pregnancy at US community health centers, with the hypothesis that Medicaid expansion would be associated with increases in use of the most effective contraceptive methods (long-acting reversible contraception). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a participant-level retrospective cross-sectional study comparing receipt of contraception before (2013) vs immediately after (2014) and a longer time after (2016) Medicaid expansion. Electronic health record data from a clinical research network of community health centers across 24 states were included. The sample included all female patients ages 15 to 44 years at risk for pregnancy, with an ambulatory care visit at a participating community health center during the study period (315 clinics in expansion states and 165 clinics in nonexpansion states). Exposures: Medicaid expansion status (by state). Main Outcomes and Measures: Two National Quality Forum-endorsed contraception quality metrics, calculated annually: the proportion of women at risk of pregnancy who received (1) either a moderately effective or most effective method (hormonal and long-acting reversible contraception) methods and (2) the most effective method (long-acting reversible contraception). Results: The sample included 310 132 women from expansion states and 235 408 women from nonexpansion states. The absolute adjusted increase in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.13-1.05) percentage points greater among women in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states in 2014 and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.41-1.96) percentage points larger in 2016. Among adolescents, the association was larger, particularly in the longer term (2014 vs 2013: absolute difference-in-difference, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.30-1.30] percentage points; 2016 vs 2013: absolute difference, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.88-2.70] percentage points). Women from expansion states who received care at a Title X clinic had the highest percentage of women receiving most effective contraceptive methods compared with non-Title X clinics and nonexpansion states. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, Medicaid expansion was associated with an increase in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among women at risk of pregnancy seeking care in the US safety net system, and gains were greatest among adolescents.