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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Payment for Contraceptive Services in Safety Net Clinics: Roles of Affordable Care Act, Title X, and State Programs.

OBJECTIVES: We describe payor for contraceptive visits 2013-2014, before and after Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in a large network of safety-net clinics. We estimate changes in the proportion of uninsured contraceptive visits and the independent associations of the ACA, Title X, and state family planning programs. METHODS: Our sample included 237 safety net clinics in 11 states with a common electronic health record. We identified contraception-related visits among women aged 10-49 years using diagnosis and procedure codes. Our primary outcome was an indicator of an uninsured visit. We also assessed payor type (public/private). We included encounter, clinic, county, and state-level covariates. We used interrupted time series and logistic regression, and calculated multivariable absolute predicted probabilities. RESULTS: We identified 162,666 contraceptive visits in 219 clinics. There was a significant decline in uninsured contraception-related visits in both Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states, with a slightly greater decline in expansion states (difference-in-difference: -1.29 percentage points; confidence interval: -1.39 to -1.19). The gap in uninsured visits between expansion and nonexpansion states widened after ACA implementation (from 2.17 to 4.1 percentage points). The Title X program continues to fill gaps in insurance in Medicaid expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured contraceptive visits at safety net clinics decreased following Medicaid expansion under the ACA in both expansion and nonexpansion states. Overall, levels of uninsured visits are lower in expansion states. Title X continues to play an important role in access to care and coverage. In addition to protecting insurance gains under the ACA, Title X and state programs should continue to be a focus of research and advocacy.

Variation in Electronic Health Record Documentation of Social Determinants of Health Across a National Network of Community Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This paper describes the adoption of an electronic health record-based social determinants of health screening tool in a national network of more than 100 community health centers. METHODS: In 2016, a screening tool with questions on 7 social determinants of health domains was developed and deployed in the electronic health record, with technical instructions on how to use the tool and suggested clinical workflows. To understand adoption patterns, the study team extracted electronic health record data for any patient with a community health center visit between June 2016 and May 2018. Patients were considered "screened" if a response to at least 1 social determinants of health domain was documented in the electronic health record tool. RESULTS: A total of 31,549 patients (2% of those with a visit in the study period) had a documented social determinants of health screening. The number of screenings increased over time, time; 71 community health centers (67%) conducted at least one screening, but almost 50% took place in only 4 community health centers. Over half (55%) of screenings only included responses for only 1 domain. Screening was most likely to occur during an office visit with an established patient and documented in the electronic health record by a medical assistant. CONCLUSIONS: Screening documentation patterns varied widely across the network of community health centers. Despite the growing national emphasis on the importance of screening for social determinants of health, these findings suggest that simply activating electronic health record tools for social determinants of health screening does not lead to widespread adoption. Potential barriers to screening adoption and implementation should be explored further. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Using Health Information Technology to Bring Social Determinants of Health into Primary Care: A Conceptual Framework to Guide Research.

Several recent national initiatives have called for increased efforts to integrate social determinants of health (SDH) into health care settings using health information technology (HIT). However, there is limited evidence to guide the implementation of these recommendations in practice. Research is needed to understand what SDH information is most important to collect, how SDH information can be used to inform clinical care and referrals, and ultimately, whether and how integrating SDH screening and action into primary care affects individual and population health. We recently proposed a conceptual framework to illustrate how HIT can be used to bring SDH information into primary care. In this paper, we describe how we are putting this conceptual model into practice within the OCHIN network of community health centers by highlighting examples of ongoing research, identifying knowledge gaps, and outlining a roadmap of future research to move the field forward.

Reporting From the Front Lines: Implementing Oregon's Alternative Payment Methodology in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Alternative payment models have been proposed as a way to facilitate patient-centered medical home model implementation, yet little is known about how payment reform translates into changes in care delivery. We conducted site visits, observed operations, and conducted interviews within 3 Federally Qualified Health Center organizations that were part of Oregon's Alternative Payment Methodology demonstration project. Data were analyzed using an immersion-crystallization approach. We identified several care delivery changes during the early stages of implementation, as well as challenges associated with this new model of payment. Future research is needed to further understand the implications of these changes.

Interviews with Patients and Providers on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Health Data Collection in the Electronic Health Record.

Purpose: Meaningful use (MU) and Uniform Data Systems (UDSs) are calling for the collection of gender identity (GI) in electronic health record (EHR) systems; however, many transgender and nonconforming (TGNC) patients may not feel safe disclosing their GI and the data collection is not designed to guide care provision. This study explores the complexities surrounding the inclusion of GI in EHR data collection and how it can best serve patients and providers. Methods: Using a semistructured interview format, TGNC patients (n=7) and providers (n=5) who care for TGNC patients were asked about data collection procedures and the use of these data within community health centers in Oregon. Using a constant comparative data analysis methodology, interview transcripts were coded for emergent concepts until overlapping themes were identified. Results: Both patients and providers expressed a need for the EHR to expand upon MU and UDS-recommended fields to include current pronouns and name and gender identifiers in a forward-facing display to prevent misgendering by clinic staff and providers. Furthermore, they both cited the need for a broader range of birth-assigned sex and gender options. TGNC patients and providers disagreed on the scope of health information to be collected as well as who should be tasked with the data collection. Conclusion: These interviews offer us a glimpse into the structural difficulties of creating an EHR system that serves the needs of clinicians while providing safe and culturally competent care to TGNC patients.