Mental health care use and quality among Medicaid adults with serious mental illness receiving care at Federally Qualified Health Centers vs. other settings.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are a critical source of care for medically underserved populations and often serve as medical homes for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). Many FQHCs provide mental health services and could facilitate access to mental health treatment within and outside of FQHCs. This study compared mental health care utilization and acute care events for adult Medicaid enrollees with SMI who receive care at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) vs. other settings. METHODS: This study used the 2015-2016 Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database to examine outpatient mental health care and acute care events for 32,330 Medicaid adults, ages 18-64 and with major depressive, bipolar, or schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), who resided in FQHC service areas and received care from FQHCs vs. other settings in 2015. Multivariable linear regressions assessed associations between receiving care at FQHCs and outpatient mental health visits, psychotropic medication fills, and acute care events in 2016. RESULTS: There were 8,887 (27.5%) adults in the study population (N = 32,330) who had at least one FQHC visit in 2015. Those who received care at FQHCs were more likely to have outpatient mental health visits (73.3% vs. 71.2%) and psychotropic medication fills (73.2% vs. 69.0%, both p < .05), including antidepressants among those with depressive disorders and antipsychotics among those with SSD. They were more likely to have ED visits (74.0% vs. 68.7%), but less likely to be hospitalized (27.8% vs. 31.9%, both p < .05). However, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of having an acute psychiatric hospitalization (9.5% vs. 9.8%, p = .35). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicaid enrollees with SMIs who had access to care at FQHCs, those receiving care at FQHCs were more likely to have outpatient mental health visits and psychotropic medication fills, with lower rates of hospitalization, suggesting potentially improved quality of outpatient care. Higher ED visit rates among those receiving care at FQHCs warrant additional investigation.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Reporting Among U.S. Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual orientation and gender identity data collection is necessary to address health inequities. This study examines sexual orientation and gender identity data reporting among community health centers. METHODS: Using the 2016-2019 Uniform Data System for 1,381 community health centers, trends in reporting of sexual orientation and gender identity data were examined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between community health center characteristics and whether sexual orientation and gender identity data were available for ≥75% of a community health center's patients in 2019. Data were analyzed in 2021. RESULTS: In 2016-2019, the percentage of community health centers with sexual orientation and gender identity data for ≥75% of patients increased from 14.9% to 53.0%. In 2019, community health centers were more likely to have this data for ≥75% of patients if they were in nonmetro counties (OR=1.48, 95% CI=1.04, 2.10 versus metro), were in the South (OR=2.27, 95% CI=1.57, 3.31) or West (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.27, 2.88 versus the Northeast), and had more patients aged between 18 and 39 years (OR=1.04, 95% CI=1.02, 1.07), between 40 and 64 years (OR=1.04, 95% CI=1.02, 1.06 vs <18 years), or veterans (OR=1.10, 95% CI=1.01, 1.20). This was less likely among community health centers serving 10,000-20,000 patients (OR=0.70, 95% CI=0.52, 0.95) and >20,000 patients (OR=0.44, 95% CI=0.32, 0.61 vs <10,000) and community health centers with more patients of American Indian/Alaskan Native (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.97, 0.99) or unknown race (OR=0.92, 95% CI=0.86, 0.97 versus White). CONCLUSIONS: Collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data by community health centers has increased substantially since 2016, although gaps remain.

The impact of funding for federally qualified health centers on utilization and emergency department visits in Massachusetts.

IMPORTANCE: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) receive federal funding to serve medically underserved areas and provide a range of services including comprehensive primary care, enabling services, and behavioral health care. Greater funding for FQHCs could increase the local availability of clinic-based care and help reduce more costly resource use, such as emergency department visits (ED). OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of funding increases for FQHCs after the ACA on the use of FQHCs and EDs. METHODS: Retrospective study using the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database (APCD) 2010-2013 that included APCD enrollees in 559 Massachusetts ZIP codes (N = 6,173,563 in 2010). We calculated shift-share predictions of changes in FQHC funding at the ZIP code-level for FQHCs that received Community Health Center funds in any year, 2010-13 (N = 31). Outcomes were the number of ZIP code enrollees with visits to FQHCs and EDs, overall and for emergent and non-emergent diagnoses. RESULTS: In 2010, 4% of study subjects visited a FQHC, and they were more likely to be younger, have Medicaid, and live in low-income areas. We found that a standard deviation increase in prior year FQHC funding (+31 percentage point (pp)) at the ZIP code level was associated with a 2.3pp (95% CI 0.7pp to 3.8pp) increase in enrollees with FQHC visits and a 1.3pp (95% CI -2.3pp to -0.3pp) decrease in enrollees with non-emergent ED visits, but no significant change in emergent ED visits (0.3pp, 95% CI -0.8pp to 1.4pp). CONCLUSIONS: We found that areas exposed to greater FQHC funding increases had more growth in the number of enrollees seen by FQHCs and greater reductions in ED visits for non-emergent conditions. Investment in FQHCs could be a promising approach to increase access to care for underserved populations and reduce costly ED visits, especially for primary care treatable or non-emergent conditions.

Psychiatrist Participation in Private Health Insurance Markets: Paucity in the Land of Plenty.

OBJECTIVE: Access to specialty mental health care may be poor because many psychiatrists do not accept health insurance reimbursement, whereas many patients rely on insurance to help pay for care. The objective of this study was to examine the extent of participation in private insurance by licensed psychiatrists. METHODS: Using 2013 Massachusetts licensing data and the All-Payer Claims Database (APCD), the authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of licensed psychiatrists in Massachusetts. The fraction of psychiatrists who filed insurance claims, number of unique patients with insurance claims per psychiatrist, and physician characteristics associated with insurance participation were evaluated. RESULTS: In 2013, Massachusetts had 2,348 licensed psychiatrists. Overall, 79% (N=1,843) had at least one paid claim for an outpatient visit in the APCD, but only 6% (N=151) had claims for at least 300 patients per year (a full caseload). Psychiatrists had a median of 18 patients with claims (mean=73). Compared with psychiatrists 30-39 years since medical school graduation, those within 19 years since graduation were less likely to bill for an outpatient (7-19 years, odds ratio [OR]=0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.47-0.94) and less likely to have claims for ≥300 patients per year (7-19 years, OR=0.49, 95% CI=0.29-0.83). Participation varied across insurance types (93% for group commercial plans versus 33% for Medicaid managed care plans). CONCLUSIONS: Among Massachusetts psychiatrists, participation in the private insurance market appears to be limited. Older psychiatrists are more likely to participate, and patients' access to psychiatrists who accept insurance could worsen as these psychiatrists retire.