Is the emergency department used as a substitute or a complement to primary care in Medicaid?

Policies to decrease low-acuity emergency department (ED) use have traditionally assumed that EDs are a substitute for unavailable primary care (PC). However, such policies can exacerbate ED overcrowding, rather than ameliorate it, if patients use EDs to complement, rather than substitute, their PC use. We tested whether Medicaid managed care enrolees visit the ED for nonemergent and PC treatable conditions to substitute for or to complement PC. Based on consumer choice theory, we modelled county-level monthly ED visit rate as a function of PC supply and used 2012-2015 New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) outpatient data and non-linear least squares method to test substitution vs complementarity. In the post-Medicaid expansion period (2014-2015), ED and PC are substitutes state-wide, but are complements in highly urban and poorer counties during nights and weekends. There is no evidence of complementarity before the expansion (2012-2013). Analyses by PC provider demonstrate that the relationship between ED and PC differs depending on whether PC is provided by physicians or advanced practice providers. Policies to reduce low-acuity ED use via improved PC access in Medicaid are likely to be most effective if they focus on increasing actual appointment availability, ideally by physicians, in areas with low PC provider supply. Different aspects of PC access may be differently related to low-acuity ED use.

Advance Care Planning Among Patients With Advanced Illness Presenting to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) benefits emergency department (ED) patients with advanced illness. Although Medicare implemented physician reimbursement for ACP discussions in 2016, early studies found limited uptake. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot study to assess ACP documentation and billing to inform the development of ED-based interventions to increase ACP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review to quantify the proportion of ED patients with advanced illness with Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) or coding of ACP discussion in the medical record. We surveyed a subset of patients via phone to evaluate ACP participation. RESULTS: Of 186 patients included in the chart review, 68 (37%) had a POLST and none had ACP discussions billed. Of 50 patients surveyed, 18 (36%) recalled prior ACP discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low uptake of ACP discussions in ED patients with advanced illness, the ED may be an underused setting for interventions to increase ACP discussions and documentation.

A randomized trial of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless persons with high use of publicly funded services.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether randomization to permanent supportive housing (PSH) versus usual care reduces the use of acute health care and other services among chronically homeless high users of county-funded services. DATA SOURCES: Between 2015 and 2019, we assessed service use from Santa Clara County, CA, administrative claims data for all county-funded health care, jail and shelter, and mortality. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled trial among chronically homeless high users of multiple systems. We compared postrandomization outcomes from county-funded systems using multivariate regression analysis. DATA COLLECTION: We extracted encounter data from an integrated database capturing health care at county-funded facilities, shelter and jails, county housing placement, and death certificates. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We enrolled 423 participants (199 intervention; 224 control). Eighty-six percent of those randomized to PSH received housing compared with 36 percent in usual care. On average, the 169 individuals housed by the PSH intervention have remained housed for 28.8 months (92.9 percent of the study follow-up period). Intervention group members had lower rates of psychiatric ED visits IRR 0.62; 95% CI [0.43, 0.91] and shelter days IRR 0.30; 95% CI [0.17, 0.53], and higher rates of ambulatory mental health services use IRR 1.84; 95% CI [1.43, 2.37] compared to controls. We found no differences in total ED or inpatient use, or jail. Seventy (37 treatment; 33 control) participants died. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention placed and retained frequent user, chronically homeless individuals in housing. It decreased psychiatric ED visits and shelter use, and increased outpatient mental health care, but not medical ED visits or hospitalizations. Limitations included more than one-third of usual care participants received another form of subsidized housing, potentially biasing results to the null, and loss of power due to high death rates. PSH can house high-risk individuals and reduce emergent psychiatric services and shelter use. Reductions in hospitalizations may be more difficult to realize.

Frequent Emergency Department Users: Focusing Solely On Medical Utilization Misses The Whole Person.

Frequent emergency department (ED) users often have complex behavioral health and social needs. However, policy makers often focus on this population's medical system use without examining its use of behavioral health and social services systems. To illuminate the wide-ranging needs of frequent ED users, we compared medical, mental health, substance use, and social services use among nonelderly nonfrequent, frequent, and superfrequent ED users in San Francisco County, California. We linked administrative data for fiscal years 2013-15 for beneficiaries of the county's Medicaid managed care plan to a county-level integrated data system. Compared to nonfrequent users, frequent users were disproportionately female, white or African American/black, and homeless. They had more comorbidities and annual outpatient mental health visits (11.93 versus 4.16), psychiatric admissions (0.73 versus 0.07), and sobering center visits (0.17 versus <0.01), as well as disproportionate use of housing and jail health services. Our findings point to the need for shared knowledge across domains, at the patient and population levels. Integrated data can serve as a systems improvement tool and help identify patients who might benefit from coordinated care management. To deliver whole-person care, policy makers should prioritize improvements in data sharing and the development of integrated medical, behavioral, and social care systems.

Part I: A Quantitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019. RESULTS: Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier. 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.

Part II: A Qualitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes. RESULTS: Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams. 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.

Past Frequent Emergency Department Use Predicts Mortality.

Little is known about mortality risk among frequent emergency department (ED) users. Using California hospital data for 2005-13 linked to vital statistics data, we found that frequent ED use in the past year was predictive of mortality among the nonelderly in both the short and longer terms.

Frequent Emergency Department Users: A Statewide Comparison Before And After Affordable Care Act Implementation.

Frequent emergency department (ED) use often serves as a marker for poor access to non-ED ambulatory care. Policy makers and providers hoped that by expanding coverage, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would curtail frequent ED use. We used data from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to compare the characteristics of frequent ED users among nonelderly adults in California before and after implementation of several major coverage expansion provisions in the ACA. Frequent users-patients with four or more annual ED visits-accounted for 7.9 percent of ED patients before and 8.5 percent after those provisions were implemented, and they were responsible for 30.7 percent of all visits before and 31.6 percent after. However, after controlling for patient-level characteristics, we found that the odds of being a frequent ED user were significantly lower post ACA for Medicaid-insured patients. Uninsured patients were also less likely to be frequent users post ACA, while privately insured patients experienced little change. The largest predictors of frequent ED use included having a diagnosis of a mental health condition or a substance use disorder. Interventions to address frequent ED use must involve Medicaid managed care plans, given that more than two-thirds of frequent ED users post ACA have Medicaid as their primary coverage source.

A National Study of Outpatient Health Care Providers' Effect on Emergency Department Visit Acuity and Likelihood of Hospitalization.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Many policymakers believe that expanding access to outpatient care will reduce emergency department (ED) use. However, outpatient health care providers often refer their patients to EDs for evaluation and management. We examine the factors underlying outpatient provider referral, its effect on ED visit volume, and whether referred ED visits are more likely to result in hospitalization than self-referred visits. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 19,342 adult (>18 years) respondents to the 2012 to 2014 National Health Interview Survey who reported they had visited an ED at least once in the past 12 months, representing an estimated 44,152,870 US adults. We categorized individuals as having been referred to the ED by an outside health care provider if they responded affirmatively to "your health care provider advised you to go" as a reason for their most recent ED visit. We performed descriptive analyses and logistic regressions to examine factors associated with outpatient health care provider referral to the ED. Respondents could choose multiple other reasons for their most recent ED visit, and we used existing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines to group these reasons into 2 categories: seriousness of the medical condition and lack of access to other providers. Our 2 main outcomes were whether an outpatient health care provider referred an individual to the ED and whether that ED visit resulted in hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the 44,152,870 US adults (18.58%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.21% to 18.95%) with one or more ED visits in the previous 12 months, 10,913,271 (24.72%; 95% CI 23.80% to 25.64%) were referred to the ED by an outpatient provider. Respondents who reported their ED visit was due to the seriousness of their medical condition were more likely to be referred to the ED (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; 95% CI 1.91 to 2.49), whereas those reporting a lack of access to other providers were less likely to be referred (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.64). Visits referred to the ED were more likely to result in hospitalization than self-referrals (OR 2.07; 95% CI 1.87 to 2.31). CONCLUSION: Almost one quarter of individuals' most recent ED visits were driven by referrals from outpatient health care providers. Being referred to the ED by an outpatient provider is strongly associated with the seriousness of one's medical condition, which also increases the odds of hospitalization compared with ED discharge. After controlling for seriousness of medical condition, ED referral by an outpatient provider continues to have an independent association with hospitalization.

Development and Validation of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Measures of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department (ED) Visits: The ED Prevention Quality Indicators for General Health Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate rates of potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits as indicators of community health. DATA SOURCES: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 2008-2010 State Inpatient Databases and State Emergency Department Databases. STUDY DESIGN: Empirical analyses and structured panel reviews. METHODS: Panels of 14-17 clinicians and end users evaluated a set of ED Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs) using a Modified Delphi process. Empirical analyses included assessing variation in ED PQI rates across counties and sensitivity of those rates to county-level poverty, uninsurance, and density of primary care physicians (PCPs). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: ED PQI rates varied widely across U.S. communities. Indicator rates were significantly associated with county-level poverty, median income, Medicaid insurance, and levels of uninsurance. A few indicators were significantly associated with PCP density, with higher rates in areas with greater density. A clinical and an end-user panel separately rated the indicators as having strong face validity for most uses evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The ED PQIs have undergone initial validation as indicators of community health with potential for use in public reporting, population health improvement, and research.

Out-of-Network Emergency Department Use among Managed Medicaid Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Out-of-network emergency department (ED) use, or use that occurs outside the contracted network, may lead to increased care fragmentation and cost. We examined factors associated with out-of-network ED use among Medicaid beneficiaries. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Enrollment, claims, and encounter data for adult Medi-Cal health plan members with 1+ ED visits and complete Medicaid eligibility during the study period from 2013 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed the data to identify factors associated with out-of-network ED use classified by mode of arrival (ambulance vs. nonambulance). DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We extracted encounter, ambulance, and ED census data and linked them together based on ED visit date. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 11,143 ED visits, 6,808 (61.1 percent) were out-of-network. The number of hours the study ED was on ambulance diversion increased the odds of out-of-network visits for the 3,365 (30.2 percent) ED visits arriving by ambulance. For all visit types, assignment to a primary care clinic at the in-network hospital and having had any primary care visit during the study period decreased the odds of out-of-network ED care. Individuals were more likely to go out-of-network for ED care if they lived in neighborhoods containing out-of-network EDs. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of factors related to out-of-network ED use, including the proximity and density of out-of-network EDs, race and ethnicity, a prior history of out-of-network ED use, and individuals' connection to primary care. EDs that serve Medicaid beneficiaries may need to explore alternative sites and modalities of care as alternatives to the ED, and consider their ability to absorb large numbers of out-of-network visits given already limited capacity.

Predicting cost of care using self-reported health status data.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether self-reported employee health status data can improve the performance of administrative data-based models for predicting future high health costs, and develop a predictive model for predicting new high cost individuals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from 8,917 Safeway employees self-insured by Safeway during 2008 and 2009. We created models using step-wise multivariable logistic regression starting with health services use data, then socio-demographic data, and finally adding the self-reported health status data to the model. RESULTS: Adding self-reported health data to the baseline model that included only administrative data (health services use and demographic variables; c-statistic = 0.63) increased the model" predictive power (c-statistic = 0.70). Risk factors associated with being a new high cost individual in 2009 were: 1) had one or more ED visits in 2008 (adjusted OR: 1.87, 95 % CI: 1.52, 2.30), 2) had one or more hospitalizations in 2008 (adjusted OR: 1.95, 95 % CI: 1.38, 2.77), 3) being female (adjusted OR: 1.34, 95 % CI: 1.16, 1.55), 4) increasing age (compared with age 18-35, adjusted OR for 36-49 years: 1.28; 95 % CI: 1.03, 1.60; adjusted OR for 50-64 years: 1.92, 95 % CI: 1.55, 2.39; adjusted OR for 65+ years: 3.75, 95 % CI: 2.67, 2.23), 5) the presence of self-reported depression (adjusted OR: 1.53, 95 % CI: 1.29, 1.81), 6) chronic pain (adjusted OR: 2.22, 95 % CI: 1.81, 2.72), 7) diabetes (adjusted OR: 1.73, 95 % CI: 1.35, 2.23), 8) high blood pressure (adjusted OR: 1.42, 95 % CI: 1.21, 1.67), and 9) above average BMI (adjusted OR: 1.20, 95 % CI: 1.04, 1.38). DISCUSSION: The comparison of the models between the full sample and the sample without theprevious high cost members indicated significant differences in the predictors. This has importantimplications for models using only the health service use (administrative data) given that the past high costis significantly correlated with future high cost and often drive the predictive models. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported health data improved the ability of our model to identify individuals at risk for being high cost beyond what was possible with administrative data alone.

Medicaid dental coverage alone may not lower rates of dental emergency department visits.

Medicaid was expanded to millions of individuals under the Affordable Care Act, but many states do not provide dental coverage for adults under their Medicaid programs. In the absence of dental coverage, patients may resort to costly emergency department (ED) visits for dental conditions. Medicaid coverage of dental benefits could help ease the burden on the ED, but ED use for dental conditions might remain a problem in areas with a scarcity of dentists. We examined county-level rates of ED visits for nontraumatic dental conditions in twenty-nine states in 2010 in relation to dental provider density and Medicaid coverage of nonemergency dental services. Higher density of dental providers was associated with lower rates of dental ED visits by patients with Medicaid in rural counties but not in urban counties, where most dental ED visits occurred. County-level Medicaid-funded dental ED visit rates were lower in states where Medicaid covered nonemergency dental services than in other states, although this difference was not significant after other factors were adjusted for. Providing dental coverage alone might not reduce Medicaid-funded dental ED visits if patients do not have access to dental providers.

Presenting quality data to vulnerable groups: charts, summaries or behavioral economic nudges?

OBJECTIVES: Despite the increased focus on health care consumers' active choice, not enough is known about how to best facilitate the choice process. We sought to assess methods of improving this process for vulnerable consumers in the United States by testing alternatives that emphasize insights from behavioral economics, or 'nudges'. METHODS: We performed a hypothetical choice experiment where subjects were randomized to one of five experimental conditions and asked to choose a health center (location where they would receive all their care). The conditions presented the same information about health centers in different ways, including graphically as a chart, via written summary and using behavioral economics, 'nudging' consumers toward particular choices. We hypothesized that these 'nudges' might help simplify the choice process. Our primary outcomes focused on the health center chosen and whether consumers were willing to accept 'nudges'. RESULTS: We found that consumer choice was influenced by the method of presentation and the majority of consumers accepted the health center they were 'nudged' towards. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers were accepting of choices grounded in insights from behavioral economics and further consideration should be given to their role in patient choice.

Reasons for emergency department use: do frequent users differ?

OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' reasons for using the emergency department (ED) for low-acuity health complaints, and determine whether reasons differed for frequent ED users versus nonfrequent ED users. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Patients presenting to an urban public hospital for low-acuity health complaints were surveyed about their reasons for visiting the ED rather than a private doctor's office or clinic. Patients with 3 or more visits to the study hospital ED over the past year were classified as frequent ED users. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if frequent ED users gave different reasons for ED use than nonfrequent ED users, while controlling for differences in other baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: 940 patients, including 163 frequent ED users, completed the study questionnaire. Commonly cited reasons for using the ED were that coming to the ED was easier than making a clinic appointment (82.3% agreed); the problem could not wait (78.8%); they didn't know how to make a clinic appointment (66.7%); they felt the ED provided better care (56.7%); and they believed the clinic would cost more (54.8%). After controlling for other patient characteristics, there were no significant differences found in reasons for ED use given by frequent versus nonfrequent ED users. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users gave similar reasons for using the ED for low-acuity health complaints compared with nonfrequent ED users. Access, convenience, cost, and quality concerns, as well as feeling that ED care was needed, were all commonly cited as reasons for using the ED.

Dispelling an urban legend: frequent emergency department users have substantial burden of disease.

Urban legend has often characterized frequent emergency department (ED) patients as mentally ill substance users who are a costly drain on the health care system and who contribute to ED overcrowding because of unnecessary visits for conditions that could be treated more efficiently elsewhere. This study of Medicaid ED users in New York City shows that behavioral health conditions are responsible for a small share of ED visits by frequent users, and that ED use accounts for a small portion of these patients' total Medicaid costs. Frequent ED users have a substantial burden of disease, and they have high rates of primary and specialty care use. They also have linkages to outpatient care that are comparable to those of other ED patients. It is possible to use predictive modeling to identify who will become a repeat ED user and thus to help target interventions. However, policy makers should view reducing frequent ED use as only one element of more-comprehensive intervention strategies for frequent health system users.

Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying " nonemergency" emergency department visits.

IMPORTANCE: Reduction in emergency department (ED) use is frequently viewed as a potential source for cost savings. One consideration has been to deny payment if the patient's diagnosis upon ED discharge appears to reflect a "nonemergency" condition. This approach does not incorporate other clinical factors such as chief complaint that may inform necessity for ED care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ED presenting complaint and ED discharge diagnosis correspond sufficiently to support use of discharge diagnosis as the basis for policies discouraging ED use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The New York University emergency department algorithm has been commonly used to identify nonemergency ED visits. We applied the algorithm to publicly available ED visit data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the purpose of identifying all "primary care-treatable" visits. The 2009 NHAMCS data set contains 34,942 records, each representing a unique ED visit. For each visit with a discharge diagnosis classified as primary care treatable, we identified the chief complaint. To determine whether these chief complaints correspond to nonemergency ED visits, we then examined all ED visits with this same group of chief complaints to ascertain the ED course, final disposition, and discharge diagnoses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and disposition associated with chief complaints related to nonemergency ED visits. RESULTS: Although only 6.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.7%) of visits were determined to have primary care-treatable diagnoses based on discharge diagnosis and our modification of the algorithm, the chief complaints reported for these ED visits with primary care-treatable ED discharge diagnoses were the same chief complaints reported for 88.7% (95% CI, 88.1%-89.4%) of all ED visits. Of these visits, 11.1% (95% CI, 9.3%-13.0%) were identified at ED triage as needing immediate or emergency care; 12.5% (95% CI, 11.8%-14.3%) required hospital admission; and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.5%-4.3%) of admitted patients went directly from the ED to the operating room. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ED visits with the same presenting complaint as those ultimately given a primary care-treatable diagnosis based on ED discharge diagnosis, a substantial proportion required immediate emergency care or hospital admission. The limited concordance between presenting complaints and ED discharge diagnoses suggests that these discharge diagnoses are unable to accurately identify nonemergency ED visits.