Comparison of two propensity score-based methods for balancing covariates: the overlap weighting and fine stratification methods in real-world claims data.

BACKGROUND: Two propensity score (PS) based balancing covariate methods, the overlap weighting method (OW) and the fine stratification method (FS), produce superb covariate balance. OW has been compared with various weighting methods while FS has been compared with the traditional stratification method and various matching methods. However, no study has yet compared OW and FS. In addition, OW has not yet been evaluated in large claims data with low prevalence exposure and with low frequency outcomes, a context in which optimal use of balancing methods is critical. In the study, we aimed to compare OW and FS using real-world data and simulations with low prevalence exposure and with low frequency outcomes. METHODS: We used the Texas State Medicaid claims data on adult beneficiaries with diabetes in 2012 as an empirical example (N = 42,628). Based on its real-world research question, we estimated an average treatment effect of health center vs. non-health center attendance in the total population. We also performed simulations to evaluate their relative performance. To preserve associations between covariates, we used the plasmode approach to simulate outcomes and/or exposures with N = 4,000. We simulated both homogeneous and heterogeneous treatment effects with various outcome risks (1-30% or observed: 27.75%) and/or exposure prevalence (2.5-30% or observed:10.55%). We used a weighted generalized linear model to estimate the exposure effect and the cluster-robust standard error (SE) method to estimate its SE. RESULTS: In the empirical example, we found that OW had smaller standardized mean differences in all covariates (range: OW: 0.0-0.02 vs. FS: 0.22-3.26) and Mahalanobis balance distance (MB) (< 0.001 vs. > 0.049) than FS. In simulations, OW also achieved smaller MB (homogeneity: <0.04 vs. > 0.04; heterogeneity: 0.0-0.11 vs. 0.07-0.29), relative bias (homogeneity: 4.04-56.20 vs. 20-61.63; heterogeneity: 7.85-57.6 vs. 15.0-60.4), square root of mean squared error (homogeneity: 0.332-1.308 vs. 0.385-1.365; heterogeneity: 0.263-0.526 vs 0.313-0.620), and coverage probability (homogeneity: 0.0-80.4% vs. 0.0-69.8%; heterogeneity: 0.0-97.6% vs. 0.0-92.8%), than FS, in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that OW can yield nearly perfect covariate balance and therefore enhance the accuracy of average treatment effect estimation in the total population.

Utilization, quality, and spending for pediatric Medicaid enrollees with primary care in health centers vs non-health centers.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has explored the performance of health centers (HCs) compared to other primary care settings among children in the United States. We evaluated utilization, quality, and expenditures for pediatric Medicaid enrollees receiving care in HCs versus non-HCs. METHODS: This national cross-sectional study utilized 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) claims to examine children 0-17 years with a primary care visit, stratified by whether majority (> 50%) of primary care visits were at HCs or non-HCs. Outcome measures include utilization (primary care visits, non-primary care outpatient visits, prescription claims, Emergency Department (ED) visits, hospitalizations) and quality (well-child visits, avoidable ED visits, avoidable hospitalizations). For children enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid, we also measured expenditures. Propensity score-based overlap weighting was used to balance covariates. RESULTS: A total of 2,383,270 Medicaid-enrolled children received the majority of their primary care at HCs, while 18,540,743 did at non-HCs. In adjusted analyses, HC patients had 20% more primary care visits, 15% less non-primary care outpatient visits, and 21% less prescription claims than non-HC patients. ED visits were similar across the two groups, while HC patients had 7% lower chance of hospitalization than non-HC. Quality of care outcomes favored HC patients in main analyses, but results were less robust when excluding managed care beneficiaries. Total expenditures among the fee-for-service subpopulation were lower by $239 (8%) for HC patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of nationwide claims data to evaluate healthcare utilization, quality, and spending among Medicaid-enrolled children who receive primary care at HCs versus non-HCs, findings suggest primary care delivery in HCs may be associated with a more cost-effective model of healthcare for children.

Ensuring Equitable Care in Diabetes Management Among Patients of Health Resources & Services Administration-Funded Health Centers in the United States.

Aim: To explore whether there are racial/ethnic differences in diabetes management and outcomes among adult health center (HC) patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey, a national sample of HC patients. We examined indicators of diabetes monitoring (A1C testing, annual foot/eye doctor visits, and cholesterol checks) and care management (specialist referrals, individual treatment plan, and receipt of calls/appointments/home visits). We also examined diabetes-specific outcomes (blood glucose levels, diabetes-related emergency department [ED] visits/hospitalizations, and diabetes self-management confidence) and general outcomes (number of doctor visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations). We used multilevel logistic regression models to examine racial/ethnic disparities by the above indicators. Results: We found racial/ethnic parity in A1C testing, eye doctor visits, and diabetes-specific outcomes. However, Hispanics/Latinos (odds ratio [OR] 0.26), non-Hispanic African Americans (OR 0.25), and Asians (OR 0.11) were less likely to receive a cholesterol check than Whites. Non-Hispanic African Americans (OR 0.43) were less likely to have frequent doctor visits, while Hispanic/Latino patients (OR 0.45) were less likely to receive an individual treatment plan. Conclusion: HCs largely provide equitable diabetes care but have room for improvement in some indicators. Tailored efforts such as culturally competent care and health education for some racial/ethnic groups may be needed to improve diabetes management and outcomes.

Staffing transformation following Patient-Centered Medical Home recognition among Health Resources & Services Administration-funded health centers.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) recognition is designed to promote whole-person team-based and integrated care. PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess changes in staffing infrastructure that promoted team-based and integrated care delivery before and after PCMH recognition in Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centers (HCs). METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We identified changes in staffing 2 years before and 3 years after PCMH recognition using 2010-2019 Uniform Data System data among three cohorts of HCs that received PCMH recognition in 2013 ( n = 346), 2014 ( n = 207), and 2015 ( n = 115). Our outcomes were team-based ratio (full-time equivalent medical and nonmedical providers and staff to one primary care physician) and a multidisciplinary staff ratio (allied medical and nonmedical staff to 1,000 patients). We used mixed-effects Poisson regression models. RESULTS: The earlier cohorts served fewer complex patients and were larger before PCMH recognition. Three years following recognition, the 2013 and 2014 cohorts had significantly larger team-based ratios, and all three cohorts had significantly larger multidisciplinary staff ratios. Cohorts varied, however, in the type of staff that drove this change. Both ratios increased in the longer term. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that growth in team-based and multidisciplinary staff ratios in each cohort may have been due to a combination of HCs' perceptions of need for specific services, HRSA funding, and technical assistance opportunities. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to understand barriers such as costs of employing a multidisciplinary staff, particularly those that cannot directly bill for services as well as whether such changes lead to practice transformation and improved quality of care.

Quality of Care for US Adults With Medicaid Insurance and Type 2 Diabetes in Federally Qualified Health Centers Compared With Other Primary Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate indicators of diabetes quality of care for US nonelderly, adult Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes and compare federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) versus non-FQHCs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed diabetes process measures and acute health services utilization with 2012 US fee-for-service and managed care Medicaid claims in all 50 states and DC. We compared FQHC (N=121,977) to non-FQHC patients (N=700,401) using propensity scores to balance covariates and generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Overall, laboratory-based process measures occurred more frequently (range, 65.7%-76.6%) than measures requiring specialty referrals (retinal examinations, 33.3%; diabetes education, 3.4%). Compared with non-FQHC patients, FQHC patients had about 3 percentage point lower rates of each process measure, except for higher rates of diabetes education [relative risk=1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.16]. FQHC patients had fewer overall [incident rate ratio (IRR)=0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.88] and diabetes-related hospitalizations (IRR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.81), but more overall (IRR=1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.07) and diabetes-related emergency department visits (IRR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: This national analysis identified opportunities to improve diabetes management among Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes, especially for retinal examinations or diabetes education. Overall, we found slightly lower rates of most diabetes care process measures for FQHC patients versus non-FQHC patients. Despite having higher rates of emergency department visits, FQHC patients were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than non-FQHC patients. These findings emphasize the need to identify innovative, effective approaches to improve diabetes care for Medicaid enrollees, especially in FQHC settings.

Health Centers and Value-Based Payment: A Framework for Health Center Payment Reform and Early Experiences in Medicaid Value-Based Payment in Seven States.

Policy Points As essential access points to primary care for almost 29 million US patients, of whom 47% are Medicaid enrollees, health centers are positioned to implement the population health management necessary in value-based payment (VBP) contracts. Primary care payment reform requires multiple payment methodologies used together to provide flexibility to care providers, encourage investments in infrastructure and new services, and offer incentives for achieving better health outcomes. State policy and significant financial incentives from Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans will likely be required to increase health center participation in VBP, which is consistent with broader state efforts to expand investment in primary care. CONTEXT: Efforts are ongoing to advance value-based payment (VBP), and health centers serve as essential access points to comprehensive primary care services for almost 29 million people in the United States. Therefore, it is important to assess the levels of health center participation in VBP, types of VBP contracts, characteristics of health centers participating in VBP, and variations in state policy environments that influence VBP participation. METHODS: This mixed methods study combined qualitative research on state policy environments and health center participation in VBP with quantitative analysis of Uniform Data System and health center financial data in seven vanguard states: Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, New York, Hawaii, and Kentucky. VBP contracts were classified into three layers: base payments being transformed from visit-based to population-based (Layer 1), infrastructure and care coordination payments (Layer 2), and performance incentive payments (Layer 3). FINDINGS: Health centers in all seven states participated in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VBP, with VBP participation growing from 35% to 58% of all health centers in these states from 2013 to 2017. Among participating health centers, the average percentage of Medicaid revenue received as Layer 2 and Layer 3 VBP rose from 6.4% in 2013 to 9.1% in 2017. Oregon and Washington health centers participating in Layer 1 payment reforms received most of their Medicaid revenue in VBP. In 2017, VBP participation was associated with larger health center size in four states (P <.05), and higher average number of days cash on hand (P <.05) in three states. CONCLUSIONS: A multilayer payment model is useful for implementing and monitoring VBP adoption among health centers. State policy, financial incentives from Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed plans, and health center-Medicaid collaboration under strong primary care association and health center leadership will likely be required to increase health center participation in VBP.

Influenza Vaccination in Health Centers During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic-United States, 7-27 November 2020.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza and influenza-associated complications including those leading to hospitalization. Resources otherwise used for influenza could support caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Center Program serves 30 million people annually by providing comprehensive primary healthcare, including influenza vaccination, to demographically diverse and historically underserved communities. Because racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, the objective of this analysis was to assess disparities in influenza vaccination at HRSA-funded health centers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and HRSA analyzed cross-sectional data on influenza vaccinations from a weekly, voluntary health center COVID-19 survey after addition of an influenza-related question covering 7-11 November 2020. RESULTS: During the 3-week period, 1126 of 1385 health centers (81%) responded to the survey. Most of the 811 738 influenza vaccinations took place in urban areas and in the Western US region. There were disproportionately more health center influenza vaccinations among racial and ethnic minorities in comparison with county demographics, except among non-Hispanic blacks and American Indian/Alaska Natives. CONCLUSIONS: HRSA-funded health centers were able to quickly vaccinate large numbers of mostly racial or ethnic minority populations, disproportionately more than county demographics. However, additional efforts might be needed to reach specific racial populations and persons in rural areas. Success in influenza vaccination efforts can support success in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination efforts.

Trends in Use of Telehealth Among Health Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, June 26-November 6, 2020.

Telehealth can facilitate access to care, reduce risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), conserve scarce medical supplies, and reduce strain on health care capacity and facilities while supporting continuity of care. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centers* expanded telehealth† services during the COVID-19 pandemic (1). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services eliminated geographic restrictions and enhanced reimbursement so that telehealth services-enabled health centers could expand telehealth services and continue providing care during the pandemic (2,3). CDC and HRSA analyzed data from 245 health centers that completed a voluntary weekly HRSA Health Center COVID-19 Survey§ for 20 consecutive weeks to describe trends in telehealth use. During the weeks ending June 26-November 6, 2020, the overall percentage of weekly health care visits conducted via telehealth (telehealth visits) decreased by 25%, from 35.8% during the week ending June 26 to 26.9% for the week ending November 6, averaging 30.2% over the study period. Weekly telehealth visits declined when COVID-19 cases were decreasing and plateaued as cases were increasing. Health centers in the South and in rural areas consistently reported the lowest average percentage of weekly telehealth visits over the 20 weeks, compared with health centers in other regions and urban areas. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, maintaining and expanding telehealth services will be critical to ensuring access to care while limiting exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Telehealth Practice Among Health Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, July 11-17, 2020.

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in-person ambulatory health care visits declined by 60% across the United States, while telehealth* visits increased, accounting for up to 30% of total care provided in some locations (1,2). In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released updated regulations and guidance changing telehealth provisions during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, including the elimination of geographic barriers and enhanced reimbursement for telehealth services† (3-6). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) administers a voluntary weekly Health Center COVID-19 Survey§ to track health centers' COVID-19 testing capacity and the impact of COVID-19 on operations, patients, and staff. CDC and HRSA analyzed data from the weekly COVID-19 survey completed by 1,009 HRSA-funded health centers (health centers¶) for the week of July 11-17, 2020, to describe telehealth service use in the United States by U.S. Census region,** urbanicity,†† staffing capacity, change in visit volume, and personal protective equipment (PPE) supply. Among the 1,009 health center respondents, 963 (95.4%) reported providing telehealth services. Health centers in urban areas were more likely to provide >30% of health care visits virtually (i.e., via telehealth) than were health centers in rural areas. Telehealth is a promising approach to promoting access to care and can facilitate public health mitigation strategies and help prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory illnesses, while supporting continuity of care. Although CMS's change of its telehealth provisions enabled health centers to expand telehealth by aligning guidance and leveraging federal resources, sustaining expanded use of telehealth services might require additional policies and resources.

Health Center Testing for SARS-CoV-2 During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, June 5-October 2, 2020.

Long-standing social inequities and health disparities have resulted in increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, severe illness, and death among racial and ethnic minority populations. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Center Program supports nearly 1,400 health centers that provide comprehensive primary health care* to approximately 30 million patients in 13,000 service sites across the United States.† In 2019, 63% of HRSA health center patients who reported race and ethnicity identified as members of racial ethnic minority populations (1). Historically underserved communities and populations served by health centers have a need for access to important information and resources for preventing exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, to testing for those at risk, and to follow-up services for those with positive test results.§ During the COVID-19 public health emergency, health centers¶ have provided and continue to provide testing and follow-up care to medically underserved populations**; these centers are capable of reaching areas disproportionately affected by the pandemic.†† HRSA administers a weekly, voluntary Health Center COVID-19 Survey§§ to track health center COVID-19 testing capacity and the impact of COVID-19 on operations, patients, and personnel. Potential respondents can include up to 1,382 HRSA-funded health centers.¶¶ To assess health centers' capacity to reach racial and ethnic minority groups at increased risk for COVID-19 and to provide access to testing, CDC and HRSA analyzed survey data for the weeks June 5-October 2, 2020*** to describe all patients tested (3,194,838) and those who received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (308,780) by race/ethnicity and state of residence. Among persons with known race/ethnicity who received testing (2,506,935), 36% were Hispanic/Latino (Hispanic), 38% were non-Hispanic White (White), and 20% were non-Hispanic Black (Black); among those with known race/ethnicity with positive test results, 56% were Hispanic, 24% were White, and 15% were Black. Improving health centers' ability to reach groups at increased risk for COVID-19 might reduce transmission by identifying cases and supporting contact tracing and isolation. Efforts to improve coordination of COVID-19 response-related activities between state and local public health departments and HRSA-funded health centers can increase access to testing and follow-up care for populations at increased risk for COVID-19.

Impact of 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) health center investments on disadvantaged neighborhoods after recession.

BACKGROUND: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are integral to the U.S. healthcare safety net and uniquely situated in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) invested $2 billion in FQHC stimulus during the Great Recession; but it remains unknown whether this investment was associated with extended benefits for disadvantaged neighborhoods. METHODS: We used a propensity-score matched longitudinal design (2008-2012) to examine whether the 2009 ARRA FQHC investment was associated with local jobs and establishments recovery in FQHC neighborhoods. Job change data were obtained from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) survey and calculated as an annual rate per 1,000 population. Establishment change data were obtained from the National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA) and calculated as an annual rate per 10,000 population. Establishment data included 4 establishment types: healthcare services, eating/drinking places, retail establishments, and grocery stores. Fixed effects were used to compare annual rates of jobs and establishments recovery between ARRA-funded FQHC census tracts and a matched control group. RESULTS: Of 50,381 tracts, 2,223 contained ≥ 1 FQHC that received ARRA funding. A higher proportion of FQHC tracts had an extreme poverty designation (11.6% vs. 5.4%), high unemployment rate (45.4% vs. 30.3%), and > 50% minority racial/ethnic composition (48.1% vs. 36.3%). On average, jobs grew at an annual rate of 3.84 jobs per 1,000 population (95% CI: 3.62,4.06). In propensity-score weighted models, jobs in ARRA-funded tracts grew at a higher annual rate of 4.34 per 1,000 (95% CI: 2.56,6.12) relative to those with similar social vulnerability. We observed persistent decline in non-healthcare establishments (-1.35 per 10,000; 95% CI: -1.68,-1.02); but did not observe decline in healthcare establishments. CONCLUSIONS: Direct funding to HCs may be an effective strategy to support healthcare establishments and some jobs recovery in disadvantaged neighborhoods during recession, reinforcing the important multidimensional roles HCs play in these communities. However, HCs may benefit from additional investments that target upstream determinants of health to mitigate uneven recovery and neighborhood decline.

Factors associated with frequent emergency department visits among health centre patients receiving primary care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine specific care-seeking behaviours and experiences, access indicators, and patient care management approaches associated with frequency of emergency department (ED) visits among patients of Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centres that provide comprehensive primary care to low-income and uninsured patients. METHOD: We used cross-sectional data of a most recent nationally representative sample of health centre adult patients aged 18-64 (n = 4577) conducted between October 2014 and April 2015. These data were merged with the 2014 Uniform Data System to incorporate health centre characteristics. We measured care-seeking behaviours by whether the patient called the health centre afterhours, for an urgent appointment, or talked to a provider about a concern. Access to care indicators included health centre continuity of care and receipt of transportation or translation services. We included receipt of care coordination and specialist referral as care management indicators. We used a multilevel multinomial logistic regression model to identify the association of independent variables with number of ED visits (4 or more visits, 2-3 visits, 1 visit, vs. 0 visits), controlling for predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics. RESULTS: Calling the health centre after-hours (OR = 2.41) or for urgent care (OR = 2.53), and being referred to specialists (OR = 2.36) were associated with higher odds of four or more ED visits versus none. Three or more years of continuity with the health centre (OR = 0.32) was also associated with lower odds of four or more ED visits versus none. CONCLUSIONS: Findings underscore opportunities to reduce higher frequency of ED visits in health centres, which are primary care providers to many low-income populations. Our findings highlight the potential importance of improving patient retention, better access to providers afterhours or for urgent visits, and access to specialist as areas of care in need of improvement.

The Relative Contribution of Social Determinants of Health Among Health Resources and Services Administration-Funded Health Centers.

Frameworks for identifying and assessing social determinants of health (SDOH) are effective for developing long-term societal policies to promote health and well-being, but may be less applicable in clinical settings. The authors compared the relative contribution of a specific set of SDOH indicators with several measures of health status among patients served by health centers (HCs). The 2014 Health Center Patient Survey was used to identify a sample of HC patient adults 18 years and older that reported the HC as their usual source of care (n = 5024). The authors examined the relationship between SDOH indicators organized in categories (health behaviors, access and utilization, social factors, economic factors, quality of care, physical environment) with health status measures (fair or poor health, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, depression, or anxiety) using logistic regressions and predicted probabilities. Findings indicated that access to care and utilization indicators had the greatest relative contribution to all health status measures, but the relative contribution of other SDOH indicators varied. For example, access indicators had the highest predicted probability in the model with fair or poor health as the dependent variable (72.4%) and the model with hypertension as the dependent variable (47.4%). However, the second highest predicted probability was for social indicators (54.1%) in the former model and physical environment (44.7%) indicators in the latter model. These findings have implications for HCs that serve as the primary point of access to medical care in underserved communities and to mitigate SDOH particularly for patients with diabetes, depression, or anxiety.

Health care use and spending for Medicaid patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder receiving primary care in Federally Qualified Health Centers and other primary care settings.

INTRODUCTION: This nationwide study builds on prior research, which suggests that Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other primary care providers are associated with increased access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. We compare health care utilization, spending, and quality for Medicaid patients diagnosed with OUD who receive primary care at FQHCs and Medicaid patients who receive most primary care in other settings, such as physician offices (non-FQHCs). We hypothesized that the integrated care model of FQHCs would be associated with greater access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and/or behavioral health therapy and lower rates of potentially inappropriate co-prescribing. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract files for patients diagnosed with OUD receiving most (>50%) primary care at FQHCs (N = 37,142) versus non-FQHCs (N = 196,712) in all 50 states and Washington DC. We used propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for measurable confounding between patients who received care at FQHCs versus non-FQHCs and increase generalizability of findings given variation in Medicaid programs and substance use policies across states. RESULTS: FQHC patients displayed higher primary care utilization and fee-for-service spending, and similar or lower utilization and fee-for-service spending for other health service categories. Contrary to our hypotheses, non-FQHC patients were more likely to receive timely (≤90 days) MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone, or suboxone) (Relative Risk [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.12) and more likely be retained in medication treatment (>180 days) (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.14). However, non-FQHC patients were less likely to receive behavioral health therapy (mental health or substance use therapy) (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.92) and less likely to remain in behavioral health treatment (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.94). Non-FQHC patients were more likely to fill potentially inappropriate prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids after OUD diagnosis (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.40). CONCLUSIONS: Observed patterns suggest that Medicaid patients diagnosed with OUD who obtained primary care at FQHCs received more integrated care compared to non-FQHC patients. Greater care integration may be associated with increased access to behavioral health therapy and quality of care (lower potentially inappropriate co-prescribing) but not necessarily greater access to MOUD.

Trends in access to care among rural patients served at HRSA-funded health centers.

PURPOSE: Nearly one-fifth of Americans live in rural areas and experience multiple socioeconomic and health disparities. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centers (HCs) provide comprehensive primary care in rural communities. However, no prior research has examined trends in access to care in rural HC patients. We examined the change in access to care among patients served at rural HRSA-funded HCs in the United States between 2009 and 2014. METHODS: We compared patients by year to examine measures of access using multilevel generalized structural equation logistic regression models with random effects. We used the 2009 and 2014 cross-sectional Health Center Patient Surveys and identified 2,625 adult rural HC patients. Dependent variables were subjective (unmet need/delay in medical care, mental health, dental care, and prescription medications) and objective measures (preventive care and other health care utilization) in access to care. Our independent variable of interest was time, comparing access in 2009 and 2014. RESULTS: Rural HC patients reported higher predicted probability of influenza vaccine receipt (37% vs 51%), and lower unmet (25% vs 14%) and delayed medical care (36% vs 18%) between 2009 and 2014. Any emergency department visits in the last year increased (32% vs 46%) and mammogram (70% vs 55%) and Pap test (83% vs 72%) screening rates decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Observed increases in access to care among rural HC patients are positive developments but the challenges to access care still persist. Remote services, such as telehealth, could be cost-effective means of improving access to care among rural patients with limited provider supply.

Intersection of complexity and high utilization among health center patients aged 18 to 64 years.

OBJECTIVES: Existing literature indicates that multimorbidity, mental health (MH) conditions, substance use disorders (SUDs), and social determinants of health are hallmarks of high-need, high-cost patients. Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers (HCs) provide care to nearly 30 million patients, but data on their patients' complexity and utilization patterns are limited. We identified subgroups of HC patients based on latent concepts of complexity and utilization. STUDY DESIGN: We used cross-sectional national data from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey and latent class analyses to identify distinct and homogenous groups of complex high-utilizing patients aged 18 to 64 years. METHODS: We included indicators of chronic conditions (CCs), MH, SUD risk, and health behavior to measure complexity. We used number of outpatient and emergency department visits in the past year to measure utilization. RESULTS: HC patients were separated in 9 distinct groups based on 3 complexity latent classes (MH, multiple CCs, and low risk) and 3 utilization classes (low, high, and superutilizers). Conditions associated with each subgroup differed. The highest prevalence of bipolar disorder (45%) and high SUD risk (6%) was observed among MH superutilizers, whereas the highest prevalence of cardiovascular disease (48%) and obesity (96%) was seen among CC superutilizers. Most MH superutilizer patients concurrently had MH conditions and obesity and were smokers, but most CC superutilizer patients concurrently had hypertension, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our examination of complexity and utilization indicated distinct HC patient populations. Managing the care of each group may require different targeted intervention approaches such as multidisciplinary care teams that include MH providers or specialists.

Early experience of the quality improvement award program in federally funded health centers.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the Health Resources and Services Administration's Quality Improvement Award (QIA) program, award patterns, and early lessons learned. STUDY SETTING: 1413 health centers were eligible for QIA from 2014 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We assessed cumulative QIA funding earned and modified funding excluding payments for per-patient bonuses, electronic health record (EHR) use, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) accreditation, and health information technology. We compared health centers on rural/urban location, PCMH accreditation, EHR reporting, and size. DATA COLLECTION: Organizational and quality measures are reported in the Uniform Data System, QIA program data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Average cumulative funding was higher for health centers that were not rural (USD 380,387 [± USD 233,467] vs. USD 303,526 [± USD 164,272]), had PCMH accreditation (USD 401,675 [± USD 218,246] vs. USD 250,784 [± USD 144,404]), used their EHR for quality reporting (USD 374,214 (± USD 222,866) vs. USD 331,150 (± USD 198,689)), and were large (USD 435,473 (± USD 238,193) vs. USD 270,681 (± USD 114,484) an USD 231,917 (± USD 97,847) for small and medium centers, respectively). There were similar patterns, with smaller differences, for average modified payments. CONCLUSIONS: QIA is an important feasible initiative to introduce value-based payment principles to health centers. Early lessons for program design include announcing award criteria in advance and focusing on a smaller number of priority targets.

Factors associated with federally qualified health center financial performance.

OBJECTIVES: To understand factors associated with federally qualified health center (FQHC) financial performance. STUDY DESIGN: We used multivariate linear regression to identify correlates of health center financial performance. We examined six measures of health center financial performance across four domains: margin (operating margin), liquidity (days cash on hand [DCOH], current ratio), solvency (debt-to-equity ratio), and others (net patient accounts receivable days, personnel-related expenses). We examined potential correlates of financial performance, including characteristics of the patient population, health center organization, and location/geography. DATA SOURCES: We use 2012-2017 Uniform Data System (UDS) files, financial audit data from Capital link, and publicly available data. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We focused on health centers in the 50 US states and District of Columbia, which reported information to UDS for at least 1 year between 2012 and 2017 and had Capital link financial audit data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: FQHC financial performance generally improved over the study period, especially from 2015 to 2017. In multivariate regression models, a higher percentage of Medicaid patients was associated with better margins (operating margin: 0.06, p < 0.001), liquidity (DCOH: 0.67, p < 0.001; current ratio: 0.28, p = 0.001), and solvency (debt-to equity ratio: -0.08, p = 0.004). Moreover, a staffing mix comprised of more nonphysician providers was associated with better margin (operating margin: 0.21, p = 0.001) and liquidity (current ratio: 1.12, p < 0.001) measures. Patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition was also associated with better liquidity (DCOH: 19.01, p < 0.001; current ratio: 4.68, p = 0.014) and solvency (debt-to-equity ratio: -2.03, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The financial health of FQHCs improved with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which included significant Medicaid expansion and direct funding support for health centers. FQHC financial health was also associated with key staffing and operating characteristics of health centers. Maintaining the financial health of FQHCs is critical to their ability to continuously provide affordable and high-quality care in medically underserved areas.

Exploring the association of social determinants of health and clinical quality measures and performance in HRSA-funded health centres.

OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the impact of service area-level social deprivation on health centre clinical quality measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional data analysis of Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centres. We created a weighted service area social deprivation score for HRSA-funded health centres as a proxy measure for social determinants of health, and then explored adjusted and unadjusted clinical quality measures by weighted service area Social Deprivation Index quartiles for health centres. SETTINGS: HRSA-funded health centres in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Our analysis included a subset of 1161 HRSA-funded health centres serving more than 22 million mostly low-income patients across the country. RESULTS: Higher levels of social deprivation are associated with statistically significant poorer outcomes for all clinical quality outcome measures (both unadjusted and adjusted), including rates of blood pressure control, uncontrolled diabetes and low birth weight. The adjusted and unadjusted results are mixed for clinical quality process measures as higher levels of social deprivation are associated with better quality for some measures including cervical cancer screening and child immunisation status but worse quality for other such as colorectal cancer screening and early entry into prenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the importance of incorporating community characteristics when evaluating clinical outcomes. We also present an innovative method for capturing health centre service area-level social deprivation and exploring its relationship to health centre clinical quality measures.

The role of dentist supply, need for care and long-term continuity in Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centres in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centres (HCs) are an important source of dental services for low-income and vulnerable patients in the United States. About 82% of HCs in 2018 had dental workforce, but it is unclear whether this workforce meets the oral health needs of HC patients. Thus, we first examined (a) whether dental workforce was associated with any dental visits vs none and (b) whether HC patients with any visits were more likely to have a visit at the HC vs elsewhere. We then examined (c) if need for oral health care and long-term continuity at the HC were associated with dental visits and visits at the HC. METHODS: This study used the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey, a nationally representative study of US HC patients, and the 2013 Uniform Data System, an administrative dataset of HC characteristics. We also used the 2013 Area Health Resource File to measure the contribution of local supply of dentists. We included working-age adult patients (n = 5006) and used multilevel structural equation models with Poisson specification. RESULTS: Larger dental workforce at the HC was significantly associated with 1% higher likelihood (relative risk [RR]: 1.01, 1.00-1.02) of any visits and 10% higher likelihood of a visit at the HC among those with a visit (RR: 1.10, 1.06-1.14). Patient self-reported oral health need was positively associated with 157% higher likelihood of dental visits (RR: 2.57, 2.29-2.88), and 42% higher likelihood of dental visit at the HC vs elsewhere (RR: 1.42, 1.19-1.69). Long-term continuity with the HC was not significantly associated with likelihood of dental visits, but was associated with 26% higher likelihood of visits at the HC among those who had any visits (RR: 1.26, 1.02-1.56). DISCUSSION: The findings highlight the potential impact of increasing dental workforce at HCs to promote access; the high level of need for oral health care at HCs; and the increased effort required to promote access among newer patients who may be less familiar with the availability of oral health care at HCs. Together, these findings reinforce the importance of addressing barriers of use of oral health services among low-income and uninsured patients.