Preventive care for low-income women in massachusetts post-health reform.

BACKGROUND: Before enacting health insurance reform in 2006, Massachusetts provided free breast, cervical cancer, and cardiovascular risk screening for low-income uninsured women through a federally subsidized program called the Women's Health Network (WHN). This article examines whether, as women transitioned to insurance to pay for screening tests after health reform legislation was passed, cancer and cardiovascular disease screening changed among WHN participants between 2004 and 2010. METHODS: We examined claims data from the Massachusetts health insurance exchange and chart review data to measure utilization of mammography, Pap smear, and blood pressure screening among WHN participants in five community health centers in greater Boston. We conducted a longitudinal analysis, by insurance type, using generalized estimating equations to examine the likelihood of screening at recommended intervals in the postreform period compared to the prereform period. RESULTS: Pre- and postreform, we found a high prevalence of recommended mammography (86% vs. 88%), Pap smear (88% vs. 89%), and blood pressure screening (87% vs. 91%) that was similar or improved for most women postreform. Screening use differed by insurance type. Recommended mammography screening was statistically significantly increased among women with state-subsidized private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.58, p<0.05). Women with unsubsidized private insurance or Medicare had decreased Pap smear use postreform. Although screening prevalence was high, 31% of women required state safety-net funds to pay for screening tests. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a continued need for safety-net programs to support preventive screening among low-income women after implementation of healthcare reform.

Lessons learned obtaining informed consent in research with vulnerable populations in community health center settings.

BACKGROUND: To improve equity in access to medical research, successful strategies are needed to recruit diverse populations. Here, we examine experiences of community health center (CHC) staff who guided an informed consent process to overcome recruitment barriers in a medical record review study. METHODS: We conducted ten semi-structured interviews with CHC staff members. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and structurally and thematically coded. We used NVivo, an ethnographic data management software program, to analyze themes related to recruitment challenges. RESULTS: CHC interviewees reported that a key challenge to recruitment included the difficult balance between institutional review board (IRB) requirements for informed consent, and conveying an appropriate level of risk to patients. CHC staff perceived that the requirements of IRB certification itself posed a barrier to allowing diverse staff to participate in recruitment efforts. A key barrier to recruitment also included the lack of updated contact information on CHC patients. CHC interviewees reported that the successes they experienced reflected an alignment between study aims and CHC goals, and trusted relationships between CHCs and staff and the patients they recruited. CONCLUSIONS: Making IRB training more accessible to CHC-based staff, improving consent form clarity for participants, and developing processes for routinely updating patient information would greatly lower recruitment barriers for diverse populations in health services research.

Innovation in ambulatory care: a collaborative approach to redesigning the health care workplace.

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of patient care and work satisfaction of the physicians and staff at an ambulatory practice that had recently started an innovative model of clinical care for women. METHOD: The authors used an inclusive process, collaborative interactive action research, to engage all physicians and staff members in assessing and redesigning their work environment. Based on key barriers to working effectively and integrating work and family identified in that process, a pilot project with new work practices and structures was developed, implemented, and evaluated. RESULTS: The work redesign process established cross-occupational care teams in specific clinical areas. Members of the teams built skills in assessing clinical operations in their practice areas, developed new levels of collaboration, and constructed new models of distributed leadership. The majority of participants reported an improvement in how their area functioned. Integrating work and family/personal life-particularly practices around flexible work arrangements-became an issue for team discussion and solutions, not a matter of individual accommodation by managers. CONCLUSIONS: By engaging the workforce, collaborative interactive action research can help achieve lasting change in the health care workplace and increase physicians' and staff members' work satisfaction. This "dual agenda" may be best achieved through a collaborative process where cross-occupational teams are responsible for workflow and outcomes and where the needs of patients and providers are integrated.