Patients' Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding Social Needs Screening and Navigation: Multi-site Survey in a Large Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: As more health care organizations integrate social needs screening and navigation programs into clinical care delivery, the patient perspective is necessary to guide implementation and achieve patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of whether social needs affect health and attitudes toward healthcare system efforts to screen for and address social needs. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multi-site, self-administered survey to assess (1) patient perceptions of the health impact of commonly identified social needs; (2) experience of social needs; (3) degree of support for a health system addressing social needs, including which social needs should be screened for and intervened upon; and (4) attitudes toward a health system utilizing resources to address social needs. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression models with clinic site cluster adjustment. SUBJECTS: Adult patients at seven primary care clinics within a large, integrated health system in Southern California. MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures of experience with, acceptability of, and attitudes toward clinical social determinants of health screening and navigation. KEY RESULTS: A total of 1161 patients participated, representing a 79% response rate. Most respondents (69%) agreed that social needs impact health and agreed their health system should ask about social needs (85%) and help address social needs (88%). Patients with social needs in the last year were more likely to (1) agree social needs impact health (OR 10.2, p < 0.001), (2) support their health system asking patients about social needs (OR 3.7, p < 0.001), and (3) support addressing patient social needs (OR 3.5, p < 0.001). Differences by social need history, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education were found. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients at a large integrated health system supported clinical social needs screening and intervention. Differences in attitudes by social need history, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education may indicate opportunities to develop more equitable, patient-centered approaches to addressing social needs.

Clinician Experiences and Attitudes Regarding Screening for Social Determinants of Health in a Large Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Clinical screening for basic social needs-such as food and housing insecurity-is becoming more common as health systems develop programs to address social determinants of health. Clinician attitudes toward such programs are largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes and experiences of social needs screening among a variety of clinicians and other health care professionals. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multicenter electronic and paper-based survey. SUBJECTS: Two hundred fifty-eight clinicians including primarily physicians, social workers, nurses, and pharmacists from a large integrated health system in Southern California. MEASURES: Level of agreement with prompts exploring attitudes toward and barriers to screening and addressing social needs in different clinical settings. RESULTS: Overall, most health professionals supported social needs screening in clinical settings (84%). Only a minority (41%) of clinicians expressed confidence in their ability to address social needs, and less than a quarter (23%) routinely screen for social needs currently. Clinicians perceived lack of time to ask (60%) and resources (50%) to address social needs as their most significant barriers. We found differences by health profession in attitudes toward and barriers to screening for social needs, with physicians more likely to cite time constraints as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians largely support social needs programs, but they also recognize key barriers to their implementation. Health systems interested in implementing social needs programs should consider the clinician perspective around the time and resources required for such programs and address these perceived barriers.

The Digital Divide and Patient Portals: Internet Access Explained Differences in Patient Portal Use for Secure Messaging by Age, Race, and Income.

BACKGROUND: Online access to health records and the ability to exchange secure messages with physicians can improve patient engagement and outcomes; however, the digital divide could limit access to web-based portals among disadvantaged groups. OBJECTIVES: To understand whether sociodemographic differences in patient portal use for secure messaging can be explained by differences in internet access and care preferences. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey to examine the association between patient sociodemographic characteristics and internet access and care preferences; then, the association between sociodemographic characteristics and secure message use with and without adjusting for internet access and care preference. SUBJECTS: One thousand forty-one patients with chronic conditions in a large integrated health care delivery system (76% response rate). MEASURES: Internet access, portal use for secure messaging, preference for in-person or online care, and sociodemographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Internet access and preference mediated some of the differences in secure message use by age, race, and income. For example, using own computer to access the internet explained 52% of the association between race and secure message use and 60% of the association between income and use (Sobel-Goodman mediation test, P<0.001 for both). Education and sex-related differences in portal use remained statistically significant when controlling for internet access and preference. CONCLUSIONS: As the availability and use of patient portals increase, it is important to understand which patients have limited access and the barriers they may face. Improving internet access and making portals available across multiple platforms, including mobile, may reduce some disparities in secure message use.

Financial barriers to care among low-income children with asthma: health care reform implications.

IMPORTANCE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes subsidies that reduce patient cost sharing for low-income families. Limited information on the effects of cost sharing among children is available to guide these efforts. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between cost sharing, income, and care seeking and financial stress among children with asthma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A telephone survey in 2012 about experiences during the prior year within an integrated health care delivery system. Respondents included 769 parents of children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma. Of these, 25.9% of children received public subsidies; 21.7% were commercially insured with household incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and 18.2% had higher cost-sharing levels for all services (e.g., ≥$75 for emergency department visits). We classified children with asthma based on (1) current receipt of a subsidy (i.e., Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program) or potential eligibility for ACA low-income cost sharing or premium subsidies in 2014 (i.e., income ≤250%, 251%-400%, or >400% of the FPL) and (2) cost-sharing levels for prescription drugs, office visits, and emergency department visits. We examined the frequency of changes in care seeking and financial stress due to asthma care costs across these groups using logistic regression, adjusted for patient/family characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Switching to cheaper asthma drugs, using less medication than prescribed, delaying/avoiding any office or emergency department visits, and financial stress (eg, cutting back on necessities) because of the costs of asthma care. RESULTS: After adjustment, parents at or below 250% of the FPL with lower vs higher cost-sharing levels were less likely to delay or avoid taking their children to a physician's office visit (3.8% vs. 31.6%; odds ratio, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.39]) and the emergency department (1.2% vs. 19.4%; 0.05 [0.01-0.25]) because of cost; higher-income parents and those whose children were receiving public subsidies (eg, Medicaid) were also less likely to forego their children's care than parents at or below 250% of the FPL with higher cost-sharing levels. Overall, 15.6% of parents borrowed money or cut back on necessities to pay for their children's asthma care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cost-related barriers to care among children with asthma were concentrated among low-income families with higher cost-sharing levels. The ACA's low-income subsidies could reduce these barriers for many families, but millions of dependents for whom employer-sponsored family coverage is unaffordable could remain at risk for cost-related problems because of ACA subsidy eligibility rules.