Evaluation of the Implementation of the Healthy Start Program: Findings from the 2016 National Healthy Start Program Survey.

Objectives The Healthy Start Program has taken a community-based approach to improving maternal and child health outcomes among underserved populations for 25 years. Although the program has been evaluated in the past, it has not undergone a national evaluation since it was transformed in 2014. The purpose of this study is to present data from an early component of the latest national evaluation-the 2016 National Healthy Start Program Survey, which includes information describing grantees, the risk profile of participants served, and the scope of services offered to meet participant needs. Methods Ninety-five grantees completed the survey, and responses are reported at the aggregate level. Study analyses are descriptive. Results Grantees reported serving a population with a high-risk profile characterized by chronic medical conditions or risk behaviors. Most grantees conduct comprehensive needs/risk assessments for participants upon program entry, yet service delivery strategies were mixed, with some differences found by geographic region. Grantees provide a core set of services to participants, including case management and health promotion/education, and tend to refer participants to community providers for services that are deemed appropriate during individual risk assessments. While most grantees have protocols in place related to these priority services, participants may not have been universally offered all services across sites. Conclusions for Practice Although grantees often highlight their facilitation of service/care coordination with existing resources, findings suggest potential areas on which to focus strategic efforts to ensure that the Healthy Start Program is successfully bridging gaps in access and utilization of services for underserved communities.

Health Care Utilization and Unmet Need Among Youth With Special Health Care Needs.

PURPOSE: To examine unmet health needs and health care utilization among youth with special health care needs (YSHCN). METHODS: We analyzed data among youth aged 12-17 years using the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health. We conducted descriptive analyses comparing YSHCN with non-YSHCN, and bivariate and multivariable analyses examining associations between dependent and independent measures. Six dependent variables represented unmet needs and utilization. Adjusted analyses controlled for sociodemographic and health measures. RESULTS: A total of 5,862 individuals were identified as YSHCN, and nearly 70% had three or more comorbid conditions. Over 90% used medical care, preventive care, or dental care in the past 12 months, while 8% reported having unmet health needs (compared with 2.8% of non-YSHCN). Using a typology of qualifying criteria for special health care needs, we found that YSHCN with increasing complexity of needs were more likely to report unmet health needs, use of mental health care services, and emergency department use, compared with YSHCN using medication only to manage their conditions. All YSHCN living in households below 400% federal poverty level were less likely to utilize nearly all types of health care examined, with the exception of mental health care use, compared with those at or above 400% federal poverty level. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in complexity of needs, race/ethnicity, and poverty status highlight existing gaps in health care utilization and persistent unmet health needs among YSHCN. Efforts should focus on strengthening coordinated systems of care that optimally meet the needs of YSHCN so they may thrive in their families and communities.

Prevalence of Brain Injuries among Children with Special Healthcare Needs.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in brain injury prevalence among US children by special healthcare needs status, accounting for sociodemographic and family characteristics, and to examine correlated health conditions among children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted cross-sectional analyses using parent/caregiver responses to the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health (n = 50 212 children). CSHCN status was based on responses to a 5-item tool designed to identify children through assessment of functional limitations, prescription medication use, elevated service use or need, use of specialized therapies, and ongoing emotional, developmental, or behavioral conditions. Brain injury history was reported by parents/caregivers based on healthcare provider diagnosis. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Lifetime history of brain injury was significantly higher among CSHCN than non-CSHCN (6.7% vs 2.3%, P < .001). CSHCN make up 19% of the total US child population but comprise 42% of children with lifetime brain injuries. In addition, the prevalence of a number of comorbid conditions and functional limitations was significantly higher among CSHCN with lifetime brain injury vs those without brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of lifetime history of brain injury is nearly 3 times greater among CSHCN than among non-CSHCN. Several comorbid conditions among CSHCN are significantly associated with lifetime history of brain injury. Further studies are needed to examine the extent to which brain injury in CSHCN may exacerbate or be misdiagnosed as other comorbid conditions.

Meeting Quality Measures for Adolescent Preventive Care: Assessing the Perspectives of Key Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Health plans are increasingly implementing quality improvement strategies aimed at meeting adolescent clinical quality measures, yet clinics often struggle to meet these measures. This qualitative study was conducted to explore how efforts to meet the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) performance measure for adolescent well-care visits were perceived by a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders. METHODS: The research team conducted 26 in-depth, semistructured interviews with participants from three stakeholder groups: clinic staff with direct patient contact, health care institutional leaders, and representatives of a payer organization. Interviews were about 45 minutes in duration, audio-recorded, and professionally transcribed. Framework analysis was used to identify and organize emergent themes, and Atlas.ti was used to facilitate data management and analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholder groups diverged in their opinions regarding strategies for achieving adolescent quality measures. Stakeholders with no direct patient interaction touted transactional quality improvement strategies that directly incentivized patients and families. In contrast, clinic staff with direct patient contact believed that incentive-based efforts undermined patient-provider relationships and the clinics' focus on wellness. CONCLUSION: A considerable disconnect exists between stakeholders with and without patient contact with regard to approaches to the delivery of well care and quality improvement strategies for meeting the adolescent well-care visit performance measure. Efforts to reconcile discordant perspectives and promote a mutual understanding between payers, institutional leaders, and clinic staff could inform the development of creative initiatives that are sustainable and effective at achieving adolescent and family engagement, as well as clinical performance benchmarks.

Preventive Counseling Services during Primary Care Visits: A Comparison of Health Centers versus Other Physician Offices.

We compared preventive counseling services provided by health centers versus other physician offices. Cross-sectional data came from the 2008 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, including 25,177 patient visits in physician offices and 3,345 patient visits in health centers. Despite serving disproportionately more vulnerable patients, health centers provided comparable rates of preventive counseling services, compared with other physician offices: health education (39% vs. 36%), disease management (34% vs. 41%), asthma education (21% vs. 13%), tobacco education (19% for both), and weight reduction education (6% vs. 9%) (p>.05 for all). Adjusted analyses showed no association between health care setting and preventive counseling.

Differences in Access to Care Among Students Using School-Based Health Centers.

Health care reform has changed the landscape for the nation's health safety net, and school-based health centers (SBHCs) remain an important part of this system. However, few large-scale studies have been conducted to assess their impact on access to care. This study investigated differences in access among a nationally representative sample of adolescent SBHC users. An analysis using multivariate logistic regression examined the association between student characteristics and access to care. We found no differences based on race/ethnicity or insurance status among adolescent SBHC users; however, we did observe significant differences with regard to unmet health needs. School nurses serve as invaluable frontline staff who can facilitate equitable access to care, provide high-quality primary care, coordinate care for students with community health services, and advocate for policy and funding support of SBHCs as a critical part of the safety net for underserved adolescents.

The quality of primary care experienced by health center patients.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the quality of the primary care experienced by health center (HC) patients and investigated whether race/ethnicity and insurance coverage were significantly associated with patients' experiences. METHODS: Cross-sectional data came from the 2009 Health Center Patient Survey. Outcomes included 10 measures of patients' experiences with primary care domains, including: (1) accessibility, (2) communication, (3) comprehensiveness, and (4) coordination of care. RESULTS: Patients who received care at HCs reported high-quality primary care, particularly regarding accessibility and communication. For example, more than 94% of patients reported that their HC location was convenient, and more than 94% reported that their provider adequately explained what they wanted to know. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, few significant racial/ethnic and insurance-related disparities were observed. In the domains of comprehensiveness and coordination, insured patients generally had better experiences than uninsured patients. For instance, Medicaid-insured patients had higher odds of reporting that HC staff helped them arrange medical appointments at other health care settings than uninsured patients (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-3.09). CONCLUSIONS: As safety-net providers for vulnerable populations, HCs provide high-quality primary care and do not exhibit the extent of disparities that exist in other US health care settings. Continued efforts are necessary to address insurance-related disparities, particularly among uninsured patients.