Evaluation of regional variation in racial and ethnic differences in patient experience among Veterans Health Administration primary care users.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in patient experience among VA primary care users at the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) level. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY SETTING: We performed a secondary analysis of the VA Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home for fiscal years 2016-2019. STUDY DESIGN: We compared 28 patient experience measures (six each in the domains of access and care coordination, 16 in the domain of person-centered care) between minoritized racial and ethnic groups (American Indian or Alaska Native [AIAN], Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multi-Race, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander [NHOPI]) and White Veterans. We used weighted logistic regression to test differences between minoritized and White Veterans, controlling for age and gender. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We defined meaningful difference as both statistically significant at two-tailed p < 0.05 with a relative difference ≥10% or ≤-10%. Within VISNs, we included tests of group differences with adequate power to detect meaningful relative differences from a minimum of five comparisons (domain agnostic) per VISN, and separately for a minimum of two for access and care coordination and four for person-centered care domains. We report differences as disparities/large disparities (relative difference ≥10%/≥ 25%), advantages (experience worse or better, respectively, than White patients), or equivalence. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our analytic sample included 1,038,212 Veterans (0.6% AIAN, 1.4% Asian, 16.9% Black, 7.4% Hispanic, 0.8% Multi-Race, 0.8% NHOPI, 67.7% White). Across VISNs, the greatest proportion of comparisons indicated disparities for three of seven eligible VISNs for AIAN, 6/10 for Asian, 3/4 for Multi-Race, and 2/6 for NHOPI Veterans. The plurality of comparisons indicated advantages or equivalence for 17/18 eligible VISNs for Black and 12/14 for Hispanic Veterans. AIAN, Asian, Multi-Race, and NHOPI groups had more comparisons indicating disparities by VISN in the access domain than person-centered care and care coordination. CONCLUSIONS: We found meaningful differences in patient experience measures across VISNs for minoritized compared to White groups, especially for groups with lower population representation.

Investigation of the role of perceived access to primary care in mediating and moderating racial and ethnic disparities in chronic disease control in the veterans health administration.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of patient-perceived access to primary care in mediating and moderating racial and ethnic disparities in hypertension control and diabetes control among Veterans Health Administration (VA) users. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY SETTING: We performed a secondary analysis of national VA user administrative data for fiscal years 2016-2019. STUDY DESIGN: Our primary exposure was race or ethnicity and primary outcomes were binary indicators of hypertension control (<140/90 mmHg) and diabetes control (HgbA1c < 9%) among patients with known disease. We used the inverse odds-weighting method to test for mediation and logistic regression with race and ethnicity-by-perceived access interaction product terms to test moderation. All models were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, rurality, education, self-rated physical and mental health, and comorbidities. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We included VA users with hypertension and diabetes control data from the External Peer Review Program who had contemporaneously completed the Survey of Healthcare Experience of Patients-Patient-Centered Medical Home. Hypertension (34,233 patients) and diabetes (23,039 patients) samples were analyzed separately. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjustment, Black patients had significantly lower rates of hypertension control than White patients (75.5% vs. 78.8%, p < 0.01); both Black (81.8%) and Hispanic (80.4%) patients had significantly lower rates of diabetes control than White patients (85.9%, p < 0.01 for both differences). Perceived access was lower among Black, Multi-Race and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders compared to White patients in both samples. There was no evidence that perceived access mediated or moderated associations between Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and hypertension or diabetes control. CONCLUSIONS: We observed disparities in hypertension and diabetes control among minoritized patients. There was no evidence that patients' perception of access to primary care mediated or moderated these disparities. Reducing racial and ethnic disparities within VA in hypertension and diabetes control may require interventions beyond those focused on improving patient access.

Development of a 3-Step theory of suicide ontology to facilitate 3ST factor extraction from clinical progress notes.

OBJECTIVE: Suicide risk prediction algorithms at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) do not include predictors based on the 3-Step Theory of suicide (3ST), which builds on hopelessness, psychological pain, connectedness, and capacity for suicide. These four factors are not available from structured fields in VHA electronic health records, but they are found in unstructured clinical text. An ontology and controlled vocabulary that maps psychosocial and behavioral terms to these factors does not exist. The objectives of this study were 1) to develop an ontology with a controlled vocabulary of terms that map onto classes that represent the 3ST factors as identified within electronic clinical progress notes, and 2) to determine the accuracy of automated extractions based on terms in the controlled vocabulary. METHODS: A team of four annotators did linguistic annotation of 30,000 clinical progress notes from 231 Veterans in VHA electronic health records who attempted suicide or who died by suicide for terms relating to the 3ST factors. Annotation involved manually assigning a label to words or phrases that indicated presence or absence of the factor (polarity). These words and phrases were entered into a controlled vocabulary that was then used by our computational system to tag 14 million clinical progress notes from Veterans who attempted or died by suicide after 2013. Tagged text was extracted and machine-labelled for presence or absence of the 3ST factors. Accuracy of these machine-labels was determined for 1000 randomly selected extractions for each factor against a ground truth created by our annotators. RESULTS: Linguistic annotation identified 8486 terms that related to 33 subclasses across the four factors and polarities. Precision of machine-labeled extractions ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 for most factor-polarity combinations, whereas recall was somewhat lower 0.65-0.91. CONCLUSION: The ontology that was developed consists of classes that represent each of the four 3ST factors, subclasses, relationships, and terms that map onto those classes which are stored in a controlled vocabulary (https://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/THREE-ST). The use case that we present shows how scores based on clinical notes tagged for terms in the controlled vocabulary capture meaningful change in the 3ST factors during weeks preceding a suicidal event.

Using Research to Transform Electronic Health Record Modernization: Advancing a VA Partnered Research Agenda to Increase Research Impacts.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is undergoing an enterprise-wide transition from a homegrown electronic health record (EHR) system to a commercial off-the-shelf product. Because of the far-reaching effects of the EHR transformation through all aspects of the healthcare system, VA Health Services Research and Development identified a need to develop a research agenda that aligned with health system priorities so that work may inform evidence-based improvements in implementation processes and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to report on the development of a research agenda designed to optimize the EHR transition processes and implementation outcomes in a large, national integrated delivery system. DESIGN: We used a sequential mixed-methods approach (portfolio assessment, literature review) combined with multi-level stakeholder engagement approach that included research, informatics, and healthcare operations experts in EHR transitions in and outside the VA. Data from each stage were integrated iteratively to identify and prioritize key research areas within and across all stakeholder groups. PARTICIPANTS: VA informatics researchers, regional VA health system leaders, national VA program office leaders, and external informatics experts with EHR transition experience. KEY RESULTS: Through three rounds of stakeholder engagement, priority research topics were identified that focused on operations, user experience, patient safety, clinical outcomes, value realization, and informatics innovations. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting EHR-focused research agenda was designed to guide development and conduct of rigorous research evidence aimed at providing actionable results to address the needs of operations partners, clinicians, clinical staff, patients, and other stakeholders. Continued investment in research and evaluation from both research and operations divisions of VA will be critical to executing the research agenda, ensuring its salience and value to the health system and its end users, and ultimately realizing the promise of this EHR transition.

Evaluating rates of chiropractic use and utilization by patient sex within the United States Veterans Health Administration: a serial cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Within the United States Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the number of patients using healthcare services has increased over the past several decades. Females make up a small proportion of overall patients within the VHA; however, this proportion is growing rapidly. Previous studies have described rates of VHA chiropractic use; however, no prior study assessed differences in use or utilization rates between male and female veterans. The purpose of this study was to assess rates of use and utilization of chiropractic care by sex among VHA patients receiving care at VHA facilities with on-station chiropractic clinics. METHODS: A serial cross-sectional analysis of VHA national electronic health record data was conducted in Fall 2021 for fiscal year (FY) 2005-2021. The cohort population was defined as VHA facilities with on-station chiropractic clinics, and facilities were admitted to the cohort after the first FY with a minimum of 500 on-station chiropractic visits. Variables extracted included counts of unique users of any VHA on-station facility outpatient services, unique users of VHA on-station facility chiropractic services, number of chiropractic visits, and sex. To calculate use, we determined the proportion of patients of each sex who received chiropractic services to the total patients of the same sex receiving any outpatient care within each facility. To calculate utilization, we determined the number of chiropractic care visits per patient per fiscal year. A linear mixed effects model was applied to examine the difference in chiropractic care utilization by sex. RESULTS: The percentage of female VHA on-station chiropractic patients increased from 11.7 to 17.7% from FY2005-FY2021. Among VHA facilities with on-station chiropractic care, the percentage of female VHA healthcare users who used chiropractic care (mean = 2.3%) was greater than the percentage of male VHA healthcare users who used chiropractic care (mean = 1.1%). Rates of chiropractic utilization by sex among VHA facilities with on-station chiropractic clinics were slightly higher for females (median = 4.3 visits per year, mean = 4.9) compared to males (median = 4.1 visits per year, mean = 4.6). CONCLUSION: We report higher use and utilization of VHA chiropractic care by females compared with males, yet for both sexes rates were lower than in the private US healthcare system. This highlights the need for further assessment of the determinants and outcomes of VHA chiropractic care.

Payer shifting after expansions in access to private care among veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether expanded access to Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care increased overall utilization or induced a shift from other payers to VA for emergency care among VA enrollees. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This study included all emergency department (ED) encounters in 2019 from hospitals in the state of New York. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis comparing VA enrollees to the general population before and after the implementation of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act in June 2019. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We included all ED visits with individuals aged 30 or older at the time of the encounter. Individuals were considered eligible for the policy change if they were enrolled with VA at the beginning of 2019. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 5,577,199 ED visits in the sample, 4.9% (n = 253,799) were made by VA enrollees. Of these, 44.9% of visits were paid by Medicare, 32.8% occurred in VA facilities, and 7% were paid by private health insurance. There was a 6.4% (2.91 percentage points; std. error = 0.18; p < 0.01) decrease in the proportion of ED visits paid by Medicare among VA enrollees relative to the general population after the implementation of the MISSION Act in June 2019. This decrease was larger for ED visits with a subsequent inpatient admission (-8.4%; 4.87 percentage points; std. error = 0.33; p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant change in the total volume of ED visits (0.06%; std. error = 0.08; p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging a novel dataset, we demonstrate that MISSION Act implementation coincided with a shift in the financing of non-VA ED visits from Medicare to VA without any increase in overall ED utilization. These findings have important implications for VA health care financing and delivery.

Factors associated with a lack of health care utilization among Veterans after a positive suicide screen in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Many Veterans at high risk for suicide are identified in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) emergency departments (ED). Little is known about what may predict care utilization in this population. To address this knowledge gap, we explored factors associated with Veterans' lack of VHA care utilization following a positive suicide risk screen in the ED. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study, we identified all patients who were seen in a VHA ED from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. We examined factors associated with not utilizing VHA mental health (MH) and all VHA care in the 6 months following a positive suicide ED screen. Predictors included comorbidity, homelessness, and MH visit and diagnosis history. RESULTS: We identified 23,446 Veterans with a positive suicide risk screen in the ED in fiscal year 2020. Overall, 4.1% had no VHA MH visits 6 months postscreen. The probability of not utilizing MH care was significantly higher for Veterans with no comorbidity (4.7% vs. 3.4% for mild comorbidity), no MH diagnosis (10.5% vs 2.8%), no past-year MH visits (13.6% vs 2.3%), and no past-year homelessness (5.4% vs. 1.1%). A smaller proportion of the population did not receive any VHA care 6 months postscreen (0.5%). Veterans who did not experience homelessness (0.6% vs 0.2%), had no MH diagnosis (1.6% vs. 0.3%), and had no previous MH visits (1.9% vs 0.2%) were significantly more likely to not utilize VHA care. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans who do not utilize VHA care after a positive suicide risk screen appear to have fewer documented health and housing concerns than those who do receive care. Yet, Veterans with a positive suicide risk screen who are otherwise healthy may remain at elevated risk for suicide following their ED visit. ED providers may consider enhanced follow-up care to mitigate suicide risk for these Veterans.

Prevalence of One-Year Mortality after Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Placement: An Opportunity for Palliative Care?

Background: Current guidelines recommend against placement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with a life expectancy less than one year. These patients may benefit from early palliative care services; however, identifying this population is challenging. Objective: Determine whether a validated prognostic tool, based on patient factors and health care utilization from electronic medical records, accurately predicts one-year mortality at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement. Design: We used the United States (U.S.) Veterans Administration's "Care Assessment Needs" one-Year Mortality Score to identify patients at high risk of mortality (score ≥95) before their procedure. Data were extracted from the Corporate Data Warehouse. Logistic regression was used to assess the odds of mortality at different score levels. Setting/Subjects: Patients undergoing a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedure between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017 in the U.S. Veterans Administration. Results: Of 3194 patients with a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator placed, 657 (21.8%) had a score ≥95. The mortality rate among these patients was 151/657 (22.9%) compared with 281/3194 (8.8%) for all patients undergoing a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedure. Patients with a score ≥95 had 14.0 (95% confidence interval 8.0-24.4) higher odds of death within one year of the procedure compared with those with a score ≤60. Conclusions: The "Care Assessment Needs" Score is a valid predictor of one-year mortality following implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedures. Integrating its use into the management of Veterans Administration (VA) patients considering implantable cardioverter defibrillators may improve shared decision making and engagement with palliative care.

A survey on self-medication for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and distrust in healthcare of veterans in a primary care setting in the United States.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic brought the public overwhelming and conflicting information. Rates of trust in healthcare professionals have been declining among laypersons over the past five decades. In this setting, we sought to evaluate the use of medications, both with or without a prescription, to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2 as well as trust in healthcare among patients in a primary care clinic. Design: We surveyed 150 veterans in primary care clinic waiting rooms at a large southwestern tertiary care Veterans Affairs hospital. This survey was performed in March-November 2021. Methods: The survey asked about respondents' demographics, use of medications, nutritional supplements, and other remedies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, perceived access to care using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CAHPS), overall health status, and barriers to medical appointments in the last 12 months. Distrust was measured using the Revised Health Care Distrust scale. We used univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses to study predictors of distrust to healthcare. Results: Forty-two (28%) of 150 respondents reported taking an agent for the prevention of COVID-19, while 4% reported storing antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19, if diagnosed. Medications were obtained from medical providers, US stores or markets, the Internet, home stockpiles, and other countries. Medications with potentially harmful effects taken for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine, pseudoephedrine, and antibiotics. Among those surveyed, the mean (SD) on the health system distrust score was 2.2 (0.6) on a scale of 1-5, with 5 indicating higher distrust. Younger age, self-reported poor health, lack of a regular physician, and self-reported poor access to care were independently associated with distrust in healthcare. Conclusion: Self-medication to prevent COVID-19 infection with unproven therapies was common among respondents, as was some level of distrust in the healthcare system. Access to care was one of the modifiable factors associated with distrust. Future studies may explore whether improving trust may moderate self-treatment behavior and storage of potentially harmful medications. Plain Language Summary: Self-Medication Habits and Trust in Healthcare Among Patients in a Primary Care Setting in the United States The public has received information from many different sources on COVID-19. Trust in healthcare leadership has also been impacted. We studied self-medication habits to prevent or treat COVID-19 among a group of primary care patients in a large hospital system in the Southwest United States. We also explored these patients' trust in their healthcare system.We asked people waiting in primary care clinic waiting rooms whether they had taken any medications, nutritional supplements, or other remedies to prevent or treat COVID-19. We also asked people whether they stored medications in the event that they were diagnosed with COVID. The survey explored patients' trust in the healthcare system through a validated trust survey tool. The survey also assessed basic demographic information, health literacy, access to care, and self-reported health status. These survey answers were analyzed to see whether there was an association between trust in healthcare and other factors including self-medication habits, access to care, demographics, or perceived health.This study found that over 25% of the 150 people surveyed had taken a medication, nutritional supplement, or remedy in an attempt to prevent COVID. We found that some people were taking potentially harmful medications, including hydroxychloroquine, pseudoephedrine, and antibiotics. We found that patients' distrust score was 2.2 on a scale of 1-5 (5 is associated with higher distrust). Self-medication for the prevention or treatment of COVID was not associated with distrust; however, younger age, self-perceived lack of access to healthcare, self-perceived poor overall health, and not having a regular doctor were predictors for lower trust. This information provides a basis to further study self-medication habits as well as ways to improve trust in the healthcare system.

Development and Evolution of a Comprehensive Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Inpatient Rehabilitation Program: A Nursing Perspective.

The James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital in Tampa, Florida has developed an innovative approach to the unique rehabilitation needs of active duty Special Operations Forces (SOF) and veterans with chronic conditions related to their military service. Tampa's program, the Post-Deployment Rehabilitation and Evaluation Program (PREP), was established in 2008. The interdisciplinary team includes one nurse practitioner and eight staff registered nurses. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is using Tampa's established and successful PREP as a model to actively expand the program to other Veterans Administration (VA) Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers over the next several years. There are several important nursing and rehabilitation team considerations for the successful development of these mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) inpatient rehabilitation programs.

Clinical and economic burden of major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior in a US Veterans Health Affairs database.

OBJECTIVE: Although a high incidence of major depressive disorder (MDD) and an increased risk of suicide are observed among the veteran population, there are yet limited real-world data characterizing patients with MDD with acute suicidal ideation/behavior (MDSI) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system. We assessed the clinical and economic burden, including comorbidities, treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and health care costs, among veterans and their family members with MDSI within the VHA system. METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal analysis of VHA datasets (10/1/2015-3/31/2018) evaluated the clinical and economic burden associated with MDSI and compared this population with matched MDD alone (i.e. MDD diagnosis without acute suicidal ideation/behavior) and non-MDD (i.e. neither MDD nor acute suicidal ideation/behavior) cohorts. RESULTS: Among 11,203 patients with MDSI, the proportions of patients who filled a prescription for ≥1 antidepressant during the 12-month pre- and 6-month post-periods were significantly higher compared with patients with MDD alone (53.7% vs 28.8%, p < .05; and 72.3% vs 44.1%, p < .05; respectively). During the 12-month pre-period, the MDSI cohort had the highest proportion of patients with ≥1 mental health-related inpatient visit compared with the MDD alone and non-MDD cohorts (13.2% vs 2.3% vs 1.4%, respectively; p < .05), and the highest mental health-related costs per patient ($8853 vs $1913 vs $1079, respectively). For the 6-month post-period, the MDSI cohort had the highest proportion of patients with ≥1 mental health-related inpatient visit compared with the MDD alone and non-MDD cohorts (60.4% vs 7.9% vs 0.8%, respectively; p < .05), and had the highest mental health-related costs per patient ($20,334 vs $4803 vs $545, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate significant clinical and economic burden for those in the VHA system diagnosed with MDSI and highlight unmet needs and opportunities for improving the care of this vulnerable group.

There are limited real-world data regarding patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder and having suicidal thoughts/behavior (MDSI) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system. We examined data on 11,203 patients with MDSI from the VHA between October 1, 2015 and March 31, 2018. We compared patients with MDSI with patients with major depressive disorder alone (MDD) and patients with no depression (non-MDD). Our results showed that patients with MDSI were treated with more antidepressant therapy, had more hospital stays (inpatient visits), and incurred greater costs than the MDD and non-MDD patients. These results highlight the unmet need and potential opportunity to improve patient care among veterans and their families with MDSI.

Electronic consultations and economies of scale: a qualitative study of clinician perspectives on scaling up e-consult delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To explore Veterans Health Administration clinicians' perspectives on the idea of redesigning electronic consultation (e-consult) delivery in line with a hub-and-spoke (centralized) model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in VA New England Healthcare System (VISN 1). Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 35 primary care providers and 38 specialty care providers, including 13 clinical leaders, at 6 VISN 1 sites varying in size, specialist availability, and e-consult volume. Interviews included exploration of the hub-and-spoke (centralized) e-consult model as a system redesign option. Qualitative content analysis procedures were applied to identify and describe salient categories. RESULTS: Participants saw several potential benefits to scaling up e-consult delivery from a decentralized model to a hub-and-spoke model, including expanded access to specialist expertise and increased timeliness of e-consult responses. Concerns included differences in resource availability and management styles between sites, anticipated disruption to working relationships, lack of incentives for central e-consultants, dedicated staff's burnout and fatigue, technological challenges, and lack of motivation for change. DISCUSSION: Based on a case study from one of the largest integrated healthcare systems in the United States, our work identifies novel concerns and offers insights for healthcare organizations contemplating a scale-up of their e-consult systems. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up e-consults in line with the hub-and-spoke model may help pave the way for a centralized and efficient approach to care delivery, but the success of this transformation will depend on healthcare systems' ability to evaluate and address barriers to leveraging economies of scale for e-consults.

Outcomes of a randomized quality improvement trial for high-risk Veterans in year two.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient-centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost-neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year. DATA SOURCES: VHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019. DATA SOURCES: Administrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse. STUDY DESIGN: Veterans with a risk of 90-day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12-month period before randomization and 13-24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference-in-differences. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p < 0.05), but ED visits (p = 0.45) and hospitalizations (p = 0.95) were not significantly different. We found a small relative increase in outpatient costs among PIM patients compared to those in usual care (mean difference + $928/patient/year, p = 0.053), but no significant differences in mean inpatient costs (+$245/patient/year, p = 0.97). Total mean health care costs were similar between the two groups during the second year (mean difference + $1479/patient/year, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Approaches that target patients solely based on the high risk of hospitalization are unlikely to reduce acute care use or total costs in VHA, which already offers patient-centered medical homes.

An Essential Guide to Chiropractic in the United States Military Health System and Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to provide an essential overview of chiropractic services in United States military and veterans' health care systems. METHODS: We reviewed literature, legislation, and policies from 1936 through September 2021 pertaining to chiropractic services in the United States military and veterans' health systems. Using these sources and our combined experience in these systems, we identified fundamental themes in the delivery of chiropractic care in the health care systems of the Department of Defense (providing health care for active duty service members) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (providing health care for veterans) in main topic areas. RESULTS: We identified 7 main topic areas relevant to the 2 systems: populations served by chiropractors; health care systems; integration; utilization and supply of chiropractic care; vetting of chiropractors; roles and evaluation of chiropractors; and oversight and leadership. Key information about chiropractic care in these systems was synthesized into the main topic areas. Benefits of high-quality within-system chiropractic care to active-duty service members and veterans are presented. The assets that within-system chiropractors bring to the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs health care systems are discussed for each main topic area. CONCLUSION: This article contains an essential overview of chiropractic services in the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It offers clarity regarding the integration of chiropractic services into these health care systems and includes a 1-page brief of talking points that may help better inform ongoing discussions of chiropractic services in these 2 different but intertwined environments.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.