Association of Medicaid Expansion With Quality in Safety-Net Hospitals.

Importance: Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) operate under limited financial resources and have had challenges providing high-quality care. Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act led to improvements in hospital finances, but whether this was associated with better hospital quality, particularly among SNHs given their baseline financial constraints, remains unknown. Objective: To compare changes in quality from 2012 to 2018 between SNHs in states that expanded Medicaid vs those in states that did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a difference-in-differences analysis in a cohort study, performance on quality measures was compared between SNHs, defined as those in the highest quartile of uncompensated care in the pre-Medicaid expansion period, in expansion vs nonexpansion states, before and after the implementation of Medicaid expansion. A total of 811 SNHs were included in the analysis, with 316 in nonexpansion states and 495 in expansion states. The study was conducted from January to November 2020. Exposures: Time-varying indicators for Medicaid expansion status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospital quality measured by patient-reported experience (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey), health care-associated infections (central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and surgical site infections following colon surgery) and patient outcomes (30-day mortality and readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia). Secondary outcomes included hospital financial measures (uncompensated care and operating margins), adoption of electronic health records, provision of safety-net services (enabling, linguistic/translation, and transportation services), or safety-net service lines (trauma, burn, obstetrics, neonatal intensive, and psychiatric care). Results: In this difference-in-differences analysis of a cohort of 811 SNHs, no differential changes in patient-reported experience, health care-associated infections, readmissions, or mortality were noted, regardless of Medicaid expansion status after the Affordable Care Act. There were modest differential increases between 2012 and 2016 in the adoption of electronic health records (mean [SD]: nonexpansion states, 99.4 [7.4] vs 99.9 [3.8]; expansion states, 94.6 [22.6] vs 100.0 [2.2]; 1.7 percentage points; P = .02) and between 2012 and 2018 in the number of inpatient psychiatric beds (mean [SD]: nonexpansion states, 24.7 [36.0] vs 23.6 [39.0]; expansion states: 29.3 [42.8] vs 31.4 [44.3]; 1.4 beds; P = .02) among SNHs in expansion states, although they were not statistically significant at a threshold adjusted for multiple comparisons. In subgroup analyses comparing SNHs with higher vs lower baseline operating margins, an isolated differential improvement was noted in heart failure readmissions among SNHs with lower baseline operating margins in expansion states (mean [SD], 22.8 [2.1]; -0.53 percentage points; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This difference-in-differences cohort study found that despite reductions in uncompensated care and improvements in operating margins, there appears to be little evidence of quality improvement among SNHs in states that expanded Medicaid compared with those in states that did not.

Disparities in inpatient costs and outcomes after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at safety-net hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Characterizing disparities that exist at safety-net hospitals is crucial for crafting national healthcare reform policies. Healthcare disparities in performing elective neurosurgical procedures like anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at safety-net hospitals have not yet been examined. OBJECTIVE: We use the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a national all-payer healthcare database of inpatient admissions, to determine whether safety-net hospitals can provide equitable care after elective ACDF. METHODS: The NIS from 2002 to 2011 was queried for patients who received ACDF in the context of degenerative spine disease. Hospital safety-net burden was designated as low (LBH), medium (MBH), or high (HBH) based on the proportion of inpatient admissions that were billed as Medicaid, self-pay, or charity care. Significance was set at p < 0.001. RESULTS: A total of 219,433 admissions were included in this analysis. HBHs were more likely than LBHs to treat patients who were Black, Hispanic, on Medicaid, or had myelopathy (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient, hospital, and clinical factors, treatment at an HBH was associated with greater in-patient inflation-adjusted log cost (p < 0.001), but not with greater length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.04) or odds of an inpatient adverse event like death, incidental durotomy, surgical site infections, deep vein thromboses and others (OR 95 % CI = 0.86-1.42, p = 0.43) compared to LBHs. DISCUSSION: Safety net hospitals had greater inpatient costs, but no greater LOS or odds of inpatient adverse events after elective ACDF. These results demonstrate a need for policies that reduce the cost of performing ACDFs at SNHs.

Medicaid Expansion Slowed Rates Of Health Decline For Low-Income Adults In Southern States.

Of the fourteen states that have not expanded eligibility for Medicaid, nine are in the southern census region, and two others border that region. Ongoing debate over the merits of Medicaid expansion in these states has focused, in part, on whether the safety net provides sufficient access for uninsured low-income Americans. We analyzed longitudinal survey and vital status data from the twelve-state Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) for 15,356 nonelderly adult participants with low incomes, 86 percent of whom were enrolled at community health centers. In difference-in-differences analyses, we compared changes in self-reported health between participants in four expansion and eight nonexpansion states before (2008-13) and after (2015-17) Medicaid expansion. We found that a higher proportion of SCCS participants in expansion states reported increases in Medicaid coverage (a differential change of 7.6 percentage points), a lower proportion experienced a health status decline (-1.8 percentage points), and a higher proportion maintained their baseline health status (1.4 percentage points). The magnitude of estimated reductions in health declines would meaningfully affect a nonexpansion state's health ranking in our sample if that state elected to expand Medicaid. Our results suggest that for low-income adults in the South, Medicaid expansion yielded health benefits-even for those with established access to safety-net care.

Perspectives of English, Chinese, and Spanish-Speaking Safety-Net Patients on Clinician Computer Use: Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net systems serve patients with limited health literacy and limited English proficiency (LEP) who face communication barriers. However, little is known about how diverse safety-net patients feel about increasing clinician electronic health record (EHR) use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to better understand how safety-net patients, including those with LEP, view clinician EHR use. METHODS: We conducted focus groups in English, Spanish, and Cantonese (N=37) to elicit patient perspectives on how clinicians use EHRs during clinic visits. Using a grounded theory approach, we coded transcripts to identify key themes. RESULTS: Across multiple language groups, participants accepted multitasking and silent clinician EHR use if focused on their care. However, participants desired more screen share and eye contact, especially when demonstrating physical concerns. All participants, including LEP participants, wanted clinicians to include them in EHR use. CONCLUSIONS: Linguistically diverse patients accept the value of EHR use during outpatient visits but desire more eye contact, verbal warnings before EHR use, and screen-sharing. Safety-net health systems should support clinicians in completing EHR-related tasks during the visit using patient-centered strategies for all patients.

Differential Safety Between Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals and Their Affiliates for Complex Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Leading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks. Objective: To assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016. Exposures: Undergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios. Results: A total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: The likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.

Trends in Emergency Department Use by Rural and Urban Populations in the United States.

Importance: Patterns in emergency department (ED) use by rural populations may be an important indicator of the health care needs of individuals in the rural United States and may critically affect rural hospital finances. Objective: To describe urban and rural differences in ED use over a 12-year period by demographic characteristics, payers, and characteristics of care, including trends in ambulatory care-sensitive conditions and ED safety-net status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of ED visit data from the nationally representative National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey examined ED visit rates from January 2005 to December 2016. Visits were divided by urban and rural classification and stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and payer. Emergency departments were categorized as urban or rural in accordance with the US Office of Management and Budget classification. Codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), were used to extract visits related to ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. Safety-net status was determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Visit rates were calculated using annual US Census Bureau estimates. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey estimates were generated using provided survey weights and served as the numerator, yielding an annual, population-adjusted rate. Data were analyzed from June 2017 to November 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Emergency department visit rates for 2005 and 2016 with 95% confidence intervals, accompanying rate differences (RDs) comparing the 2 years, and annual rate change (RC) with accompanying trend tests using weighted linear regression models. Results: During the period examined, rural ED visit estimates increased from 16.7 million to 28.4 million, and urban visits increased from 98.6 million to 117.2 million. Rural ED visits increased for non-Hispanic white patients (13.5 million to 22.5 million), Medicaid beneficiaries (4.4 million to 9.7 million), those aged 18 to 64 years (9.6 million to 16.7 million), and patients without insurance (2.7 million to 3.4 million). Rural ED visit rates increased by more than 50%, from 36.5 to 64.5 visits per 100 persons (RD, 28.9; RC, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.3), outpacing urban ED visit rates, which increased from 40.2 to 42.8 visits per 100 persons (RD, 2.6; RC, 0.2; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.6). By 2016, nearly one-fifth of all ED visits occurred in the rural setting. From 2005 to 2016, rural ED utilization rates increased for non-Hispanic white patients (RD, 26.1; RC, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.8), Medicaid beneficiaries (RD, 56.4; RC, 4.1; 95% CI, 2.1 to 6.1), those aged 18 to 44 years (46.9 to 81.6 visits per 100 persons; RD, 34.7; RC, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.5) as well as those aged 45 to 64 years (27.5 to 53.9 visits per 100 persons; RD, 26.5; RC, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.7 to 2.5), and patients without insurance (44.0 to 66.6 visits per 100 persons per year; RD, 22.6; RC, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.2 to 5.2), with a larger proportion of rural EDs categorized as safety-net status. Conclusions and Relevance: Rural EDs are experiencing important changes in utilization rates, increasingly serving a larger proportion of traditionally disadvantaged groups and with greater pressure as safety-net hospitals.

How Have 30-Day Readmission Penalties Affected Racial Disparities in Readmissions?: an Analysis from 2007 to 2014 in Five US States.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day readmission penalties implemented with the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) place a larger burden on safety-net hospitals which treat a disproportionate share of racial minorities, leading to concerns that already large racial disparities in readmissions could widen. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there were changes in Black-White disparities in 30-day readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia following the passage and implementation of HRRP, and to compare disparities across safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional analysis, stratified by safety-net status. SUBJECTS: 1,745,686 Medicare patients over 65 discharged alive from hospitals in 5 US states: NY, FL, NE, WA, and AR. MAIN MEASURES: Odds ratios comparing 30-day readmission rates following an index admission for AMI, CHF, or pneumonia for Black and White patients between 2007 and 2014. KEY RESULTS: Prior to the passage of HRRP in 2010, Black and White readmission rates and disparities in readmissions were decreasing. These reductions were largest at safety-net hospitals. In 2007, Blacks had 13% higher odds of readmission if treated in safety-net hospitals, compared with 5% higher odds in 2010 (P < 0.05). These trends continued following the passage of HRRP. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to HRRP, there were large reductions in Black-White disparities in readmissions at safety-net hospitals. Although HRRP tends to assess higher penalties for safety-net hospitals, improvements in readmissions have not reversed following the implementation of HRRP. In contrast, disparities continue to persist at non-safety-net hospitals which face much lower penalties.

Changes to Racial Disparities in Readmission Rates After Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Within Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals.

Importance: Although readmission rates are declining under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), concerns remain that the HRRP will harm quality at safety-net hospitals because they are penalized more often. Disparities between white and black patients might widen because more black patients receive care at safety-net hospitals. Disparities may be particularly worse for clinical conditions not targeted by the HRRP because hospitals might reallocate resources toward targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) at the expense of nontargeted conditions. Objective: To examine disparities in readmission rates between white and black patients discharged from safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP began, evaluating discharges for any clinical condition and the subsets of targeted and nontargeted conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study conducting quasi-experimental analyses of patient hospital discharges for any clinical condition among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015 after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Changes in disparities were measured within safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP penalties were enforced and compared with prior trends. These analyses were then stratified by targeted and nontargeted conditions. Analyses were conducted from October 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trends in 30-day readmission rates among white and black patients by quarter and differences in trends across periods. Results: The study sample included 58 237 056 patient discharges (black patients, 9.8%; female, 57.7%; mean age [SD] age, 78.8 [7.9] years; nontargeted conditions, 50 372 806 [86.5%]). Within safety-net hospitals, disparities in readmission rates for all clinical conditions widened between black and white patients by 0.04 percentage point per quarter in the HRRP penalty period (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07; P = .01). This widening was driven by nontargeted conditions (0.05 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.08]; P = .006), whereas disparities for the HRRP-targeted conditions did not change (with an increase of 0.01 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10]; P = .74). Within non-safety-net hospitals, racial disparities remained stable in the HRRP penalty period across all conditions, whether the conditions were HRRP-targeted or nontargeted. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this study suggest that disparities are widening within safety-net hospitals, specifically for non-HRRP-targeted conditions. Although increases in racial disparities for nontargeted conditions were modest, they represent 6 times more discharges in our cohort than targeted conditions.

A mixed-methods investigation of incident Hemodialysis access in a safety-net population.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved health outcomes associated with arteriovenous fistulas, 80% of Americans initiate hemodialysis using a catheter, influenced by low socioeconomic status among other factors. Risk factors for incident catheter use in safety-net populations are unknown. Our objective was to identify factors associated with incident catheter use among hemodialysis patients at one safety-net hospital, with a goal of informing fistula placement initiatives targeted at safety-net populations more generally. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all incident hemodialysis patients at a single urban safety-net hospital from January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 (n = 241), as well as semi-structured interviews with a multi-lingual convenience sample of patients (n = 10) from this cohort. The primary outcome was incident vascular access modality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with incident catheter use. Interview transcripts were coded using a directed content analysis framework based on a model describing barriers to healthcare access. RESULTS: Subjects were 61.8% male, racially/ethnically diverse (19.5% white, 29.5% black, 28.6% Hispanic, 17.4% Asian), with a mean age of 52.4 years. Eighty-eight percent initiated hemodialysis using a catheter. In multivariable analysis, longer duration of nephrology care was associated with decreased catheter use (>12 months vs. 0-6 months: adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.23, p < 0.001), whereas uninsured status increased odds of catheter use (aOR 3.96, 1.23-12.76, p = 0.02). There was a decrease in catheter use after vascular surgery services became available in-hospital (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.98, p = 0.04), however this association was not significant in multivariable analysis (aOR 0.48, 0.17-1.36, p = 0.17). During interviews, patients cited emotional responses to disease, lack of social and financial resources, and limited health knowledge as barriers to obtaining fistula surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of catheter use in this urban safety-net population is above the national average. Access to health insurance, early referrals to nephrology, and provision of in-hospital vascular surgery should be prioritized in the safety-net. Additionally, services that support patients' emotional and learning needs may decrease delays in fistula placement.

Trends in readmission rates for safety net hospitals and non-safety net hospitals in the era of the US Hospital Readmission Reduction Program: a retrospective time series analysis using Medicare administrative claims data from 2008 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE: To compare trends in readmission rates among safety net and non-safety net hospitals under the US Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). DESIGN: A retrospective time series analysis using Medicare administrative claims data from January 2008 to June 2015. SETTING: We examined 3254 US hospitals eligible for penalties under the HRRP, categorised as safety net or non-safety net hospitals based on the hospital's proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status. PARTICIPANTS: Admissions for Medicare fee-for-service patients, age ≥65 years, discharged alive, who had a valid five-digit zip code and did not have a principal discharge diagnosis of cancer or psychiatric illness were included, for a total of 52 516 213 index admissions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean hospital-level, all-condition, 30-day risk-adjusted standardised unplanned readmission rate, measured quarterly, along with quarterly rate of change, and an interrupted time series examining: April-June 2010, after HRRP was passed, and October-December 2012, after HRRP penalties were implemented. RESULTS: 58.0% (SD 15.3) of safety net hospitals and 17.1% (SD 10.4) of non-safety net hospitals' patients were in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic status. The mean safety net hospital standardised readmission rate declined from 17.0% (SD 3.7) to 13.6% (SD 3.6), whereas the mean non-safety net hospital declined from 15.4% (SD 3.0) to 12.7% (SD 2.5). The absolute difference in rates between safety net and non-safety net hospitals declined from 1.6% (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9) to 0.9% (0.7 to 1.2). The quarterly decline in standardised readmission rates was 0.03 percentage points (95% CI 0.03 to 0.02, p<0.001) greater among safety net hospitals over the entire study period, and no differential change among safety net and non-safety net hospitals was found after either HRRP was passed or penalties enacted. CONCLUSIONS: Since HRRP was passed and penalties implemented, readmission rates for safety net hospitals have decreased more rapidly than those for non-safety net hospitals.

Health Services Utilization Among Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicaid Patients Under Age 65 with Behavioral Health Illness at an Urban Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, fee-for-service patients with both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligible) sustained $319.5 billion in health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To describe the emergency department (ED) use and hospital admissions of adult dual eligible patients aged under 65 years who used an urban safety net hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective database analysis of patients aged between 18 and 65 years with Medicare and Medicaid, who used an urban safety net academic health center between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. We compared patients with and without behavioral health illness. The main outcome measures were hospital admission and ED use. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for descriptive statistics on categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Greedy propensity score matching was used to control for confounding factors. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined after matching and after adjusting for those variables that remained significantly different after matching. RESULTS: In 2011, 10% of all fee-for-service dual eligible patients aged less than 65 years in Massachusetts were seen at Boston Medical Center. Data before propensity score matching showed significant differences in age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, employment, physical comorbidities, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score between patients with and without behavioral health illness. Analysis after propensity score matching found significant differences in sex, Hispanic race, and other education and employment status. Compared with patients without behavioral health illness, patients with behavioral health illness had a higher RR for hospital admissions (RR = 2.07; 95% CI = 1.81-2.38; P < 0.001) and ED use (RR = 1.61; 95% CI = 1.46-1.77; P < 0.001). Results were robust after adjusting for characteristics that remained statistically significantly different after propensity score matching. CONCLUSIONS: Adult dual eligible patients aged less than 65 years with behavioral health illness in the Medicaid fee-for-service plan had significantly higher rates of hospital admission and ED use compared with dual eligible patients without behavioral health illness at the largest urban safety net medical center in New England. Safety net hospitals care for a large proportion of dual eligible patients with behavioral health illness. Further research is needed to elucidate the systems-related and patient-centered factors contributing to the utilization behaviors of this patient population. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded in part by a National Research Service Award (T3HP10028-14-01). The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. Cancino had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design were contributed by Cancino, Jack, and Burgess, with assistance from Cremieux. Cancino and Cremieux took the lead in data collection, along with Jack and Burgess, and data interpretation was performed by Jarvis, Cummings, and Cooper, along with the other authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Cancino, along with Jack and Burgess, and revised primarily by Cancino, along with the other authors.

Possible consequences of regionally based bundled payments for diabetic amputations for safety net hospitals in Texas.

OBJECTIVE: Ongoing health reform in the United States encourages quality-based reimbursement methods such as bundled payments for surgery. The effect of such changes on high-risk procedures is unknown, especially at safety net hospitals. This study quantified the burden of diabetes-related amputation and the potential financial effect of bundled payments at safety net hospitals in Texas. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of diabetic amputation burden and charges using publically available data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and the Texas Department of Health from 2008 to 2012. Using hospital referral region (HRR)-level analysis, we categorized the proportion of safety net hospitals within each region as very low (0%-9%), low (10%-20%), average (20%-33%), and high (>33%) and compared amputation rates across regions using nonparametric tests of trend. We then used charge data to create reimbursement rates based on HRR to estimate financial losses. RESULTS: We identified 51 adult hospitals as safety nets in Texas. Regions varied in the proportion of safety net hospitals from 0% in Victoria to 65% in Harlingen. Among beneficiaries aged >65, amputation rates correlated to the proportion of safety net hospitals in each region; for example, patients in the lowest quartile of safety net had a yearly rate of 300 amputations per 100,000 beneficiaries, whereas those in the highest quartile had a yearly rate of 472 per 100,000 (P = .007). Charges for diabetic amputation-related admissions varied almost 200-fold, from $5000 to $1.4 million. Using reimbursement based on HRR to estimate a bundled payment, we noted net losses would be higher at safety net vs nonsafety net hospitals ($180 million vs $163 million), representing a per-hospital loss of $1.6 million at safety nets vs $700,000 at nonsafety nets (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Regions with a high proportion of safety net hospitals perform almost half of the diabetic amputations in Texas. Changes to traditional payment models should account for the disproportionate burden of high-risk procedures performed by these hospitals.

Role of the 340B Drug Discount Program in Recent Cancer Care Trends.

The 340B program, a drug discount program created by the US Congress, allows safety-net providers to access discounted drug pricing that helps low-income and vulnerable patients. This program has recently been the subject of significant discussions as to its potential implications. Herein we review the role of the 340B drug discount program and its relevance to recent trends in cancer care and to the access of safety-net providers and vulnerable patients to much-needed drug support.

Creating incentives to move upstream: developing a diversified portfolio of population health measures within payment and health care reform.

I examined the feasibility of developing a balanced portfolio of population health measures that would be useful within the current deliberations about health care and payment reform. My commentary acknowledges that an obstacle to the selection of population health metrics is the differing definitions of population health. Rather than choosing between these definitions, I identified five categories of indicators, ranging from traditional clinical care prevention interventions to those that measure investment in community-level nonclinical services, that in various combinations might yield the most promising results. I offer concrete examples of markers in each of the categories and show that there is a growing number of individuals eager to receive concrete recommendations and implement population health pilot programs.

An early look at rates of uninsured safety net clinic visits after the Affordable Care Act.

PURPOSE: The Affordable Care Act of 2010 supports marked expansions in Medicaid coverage in the United States. As of January 1, 2014, a total of 25 states and the District of Columbia expanded their Medicaid programs. We tested the hypothesis that rates of uninsured safety net clinic visits would significantly decrease in states that implemented Medicaid expansion, compared with states that did not. METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal observational study of coverage status for adult visits in community health centers, from 12 months before Medicaid expansion (January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) through 6 months after expansion (January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014). We analyzed data from 156 clinics in the OCHIN practice-based research network, with a shared electronic health record, located in 9 states (5 expanded Medicaid coverage and 4 did not). RESULTS: Analyses were based on 333,655 nonpregnant adult patients and their 1,276,298 in-person billed encounters. Overall, clinics in the expansion states had a 40% decrease in the rate of uninsured visits in the postexpansion period and a 36% increase in the rate of Medicaid-covered visits. In contrast, clinics in the nonexpansion states had a significant 16% decline in the rate of uninsured visits but no change in the rate of Medicaid-covered visits. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial decrease in uninsured community health center visits and a significant increase in Medicaid-covered visits in study clinics in states that expanded Medicaid in 2014, whereas study clinics in states opting out of the expansion continued to have a high rate of uninsured visits. These findings suggest that Affordable Care Act-related Medicaid expansions have successfully decreased the number of uninsured safety net patients in the United States.