Limits of prenatal care coordination for improving birth outcomes among Medicaid participants.

Maternity Care Homes (MCHs) intend to address clinical and psychosocial needs for perinatal patients and are commonly implemented for Medicaid beneficiaries. Rigorous evidence supporting MCHs' effectiveness for improving birth outcomes is thin, but most studies consider only clinical and demographic factors from administrative data. To assess birth outcomes with controls for psychosocial variables known to affect them, this paper considers quantitative participant-level data from the Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns prenatal care initiative, with qualitative case study data to further contextualize results. From 2013 to 2017, Strong Start served over 45,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in 32 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico though MCHs, group prenatal care, or freestanding birth centers. Participant data included risks screens for food insecurity, depression, anxiety, pregnancy intention, and intimate partner violence, in addition to clinical and demographic information. After clinical, demographic and psychosocial risks were controlled in a regression model, Strong Start birth center participants showed significantly lower rates of preterm birth, low birthweight, and cesarean section relative to MCH participants (p < .01). In group prenatal care, White participants showed lower rates of preterm birth (p < .01) and Black participants showed lower rates of low birthweight (p < .05) relative to MCH participants. Strong Start participants reported appreciation for MCH care managers' support, but community and clinical referrals often had long waiting lists or were inaccessible. Transformative care models focusing on provider continuity, relationship building, and patient activation may offer more promise for improving birth outcomes than supplementing medical models with care management and other resources.

Midwifery and Birth Centers Under State Medicaid Programs: Current Limits to Beneficiary Access to a High-Value Model of Care.

Policy Points Birth center services must be covered under Medicaid per federal mandate, but reimbursement and other policy barriers prevent birth centers from serving more Medicaid patients. Midwifery care provided through birth centers improves maternal and infant outcomes and lowers costs for Medicaid beneficiaries. Birth centers offer an array of birth options and have resources to care for patients with medical and psychosocial risks. Addressing the barriers identified in this study would promote birth centers' participation in Medicaid, leading to better outcomes for Medicaid-covered mothers and newborns and significant savings for the Medicaid program. CONTEXT: Midwifery care, particularly when offered through birth centers, has shown promise in both improving pregnancy outcomes and containing costs. The national evaluation of Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns II, an initiative that tested enhanced prenatal care models for Medicaid beneficiaries, found that women receiving prenatal care at Strong Start birth centers experienced superior birth outcomes compared to matched and adjusted counterparts in typical Medicaid care. We use qualitative evaluation data to investigate birth centers' experiences participating in Medicaid, and identify policies that influence Medicaid beneficiaries' access to midwives and birth centers. METHODS: We analyzed data from more than 200 key informant interviews and 40 focus groups conducted during four case study rounds; a phone-based survey of Medicaid officials in Strong Start states; and an Internet-based survey of birth center sites. We identified themes related to access to midwives and birth centers, focusing on influential Medicaid policies. FINDINGS: Medicaid beneficiaries chose birth center care because they preferred midwife providers, wanted a more natural birth experience, or in some cases sought certain pain relief methods or birth procedures not available at hospitals. However, Medicaid enrollees currently have less access to birth centers than privately insured women. Many birth centers have difficulty contracting with managed care organizations and participating in Medicaid value-based delivery system reforms, and birth center reimbursement rates are sometimes too low to cover the actual cost of care. Some birth centers significantly limit Medicaid business because of low reimbursement rates and threats to facility sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid beneficiaries do not have the same access to maternity care providers and birth settings as their privately insured counterparts. Medicaid policy barriers prevent some birth centers from serving more Medicaid patients, or threaten the financial sustainability of centers. By addressing these barriers, more Medicaid beneficiaries could access care that is associated with positive birth outcomes for mothers and newborns, and the Medicaid program could reap significant savings.

What do women in Medicaid say about enhanced prenatal care? Findings from the national Strong Start evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid pays for approximately half of United States births, yet little research has explored Medicaid beneficiaries' perspectives on their maternity care. Typical maternity care in the United States has been criticized as too medically focused while insufficiently addressing psychosocial risks and patient education. Enhanced care strives for a more holistic approach. METHODS: The perspectives of participants in the Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns II initiative, which provided enhanced prenatal care to women covered by Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) during pregnancy through Birth Centers, Group Prenatal Care, and Maternity Care Homes, are evaluated. Strong Start intended to improve care quality and birth outcomes while lowering costs. We analyzed data from 133 focus groups with 951 pregnant or postpartum women who participated in Strong Start from 2013 to 2017. RESULTS: The majority of focus group participants said that Strong Start's enhanced care offered numerous important benefits over typical maternity care, including considerably more focus on women's psychosocial risk factors and need for education. They praised increased support; nutrition, breastfeeding, and family planning education; community referrals; longer time with practitioners; and involvement of partners in their care. Maternity Care Home participants, however, occasionally voiced concerns over lack of practitioner continuity and short clinical appointments, whereas Group Prenatal Care participants sometimes said they could not attend visits because of lack of childcare. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries reported positive experiences with Strong Start care. If more Medicaid practitioners could adopt aspects of the prenatal care approaches that women praised most, it is likely that women's risk factors could be more effectively addressed and their overall care experiences could be improved.

Correction to: Inequality and Innovation: Barriers and Facilitators to 17P Administration to Prevent Preterm Birth among Medicaid Participants.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in the order of authors. The co-author "Sarah Benatar" should be the second author and "Brigette Courtot" should be the third author of the article.

Inequality and Innovation: Barriers and Facilitators to 17P Administration to Prevent Preterm Birth among Medicaid Participants.

Objectives Strategies to prevent preterm birth are limited. 17 Alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone Caproate (17P) injections have been shown to be effective, but the intervention is under-used. This mixed methods study investigates barriers and facilitators to 17P administration among Medicaid and CHIP participants enrolled in Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns, a federal preterm birth prevention program. Methods Twenty-seven awardees with more than 200 sites in 30 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico enrolled approximately 46,000 women in Strong Start from 2013 to 2016. Participant data, including data on preterm birth and 17P, was collected for each woman. Intensive interviews (n = 211) conducted with Strong Start program staff and providers (n = 314) included questions about 17P provision. Results Of women whose data included a valid response regarding 17P initiation, 3919 had a prior preterm birth and current singleton pregnancy; 14.95% received 17P. Barriers to 17P administration include late entry to prenatal care, administrative burden of preauthorization, cost risks to providers, limits in scope of practice for non-physician providers, and social barriers among participants. Facilitators for provision include streamlined work flows and the option of home administration. Conclusions for Practice A universal insurance authorization process could mitigate many barriers to 17P use. Providers need continuing education regarding the effectiveness of 17P, and expanding scope of practice for non-physician prenatal care providers would increase access. Targeted program interventions can help to overcome social barriers Medicaid participants face in accessing care. Streamlined work processes and the option of home health services are two effective program-based facilitators for providing 17P to a Medicaid population.

The role of funded partnerships in working towards decreasing COVID-19 vaccination disparities, United States, March 2021-December 2022.

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

Comparing models of maternity care serving women at risk of poor birth outcomes in Washington, DC.

Low-income African American women in Washington, DC, exhibit some of the worst birth outcomes in the United States. The authors undertook a qualitative, comparative case study of three different models of maternity care delivery to low-income women at risk of poor birth outcomes in Washington. The key study objectives were (1) to describe the organization, delivery, and content of care of the three models of maternity care and (2) to analyze how the models of care might be improved to better serve this population efficiently and cost-effectively. Our results indicate that all three models vary distinctly in how they organize and deliver care and what composes the content of care. Further, findings suggest that pregnant low-income women require the allocation of additional and nontraditional maternity care resources such as prenatal group care and breastfeeding peer counselors. These nontraditional components of care help providers address underlying social risk factors that may be negatively affecting the health of pregnant women and their unborn children. While nontraditional maternity care models may provide greater value for money than traditional obstetric models, they face funding and sustainability challenges.

Preeclampsia Risk and Prevention among Pregnant Medicaid Beneficiaries.

Pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders can cause morbidity and mortality. Low-dose aspirin (LDA) reduces risk. This paper aims to assess Medicaid beneficiaries' risk factors for preeclampsia and their providers' clinical use of LDA in the federal Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns II initiative. Twenty-seven awardees with more than 200 care sites served almost 46,000 women. This mixed-methods analysis assesses rates of risks, incidence of pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders, and assessment of care teams' LDA knowledge and reported prescription practices. Many Strong Start participants had risk factors that merited LDA, but most practices reported inconsistent or non-existent prescribing. Use varied within the three care models and among all provider types. Ancillary care team members often had no knowledge of LDA's benefits, resulting in lost opportunities for educating patients and assessing adherence to LDA use. Clear policies and well-integrated care teams could increase evidence-based use, improve pregnancy outcomes, and promote women's lifelong cardiovascular health.

Key Considerations for Implementing Group Prenatal Care: Lessons from 60 Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Group prenatal care combines clinical care with peer support and education. Research has indicated neutral or positive results for group care when compared with traditional individual prenatal visits. A national initiative, Strong Start II, was implemented to determine if specific prenatal care interventions such as group prenatal care can reduce the rate of preterm birth, improve health outcomes, and lower costs. This study explored barriers to implementation and sustainability and strategies for overcoming barriers and sustaining the model. METHODS: Results from prenatal care provider-level qualitative case studies for the independent evaluation of Strong Start were examined. Case studies for sites implementing group prenatal care were based on a total of 313 interviews with 441 Strong Start key informants (eg, prenatal care providers, project staff, and health administrators involved in group care) and 53 focus groups with 428 Strong Start participants from 2013 to 2016. Supplemental interviews with 25 additional stakeholders were also conducted. Case study data were queried using content analysis followed by a grounded theory-based analysis of these findings. RESULTS: Barriers to implementation existed at patient, provider, administrator, system, and funding levels and included inflexible appointment times, lack of childcare, lack of appropriate meeting space, new scheduling and training needs, meeting requirements of graduate medical education programs, prenatal care provider and administrator reluctance to adopt new practices, and Medicaid payment policies. Sites newly implementing group prenatal care had varying degrees of success sustaining their programs. Both new and established sites identified provider champions and opt-out enrollment approaches as critical for maintaining buy-in. DISCUSSION: Successful implementation of group prenatal care depends on systematic strategies at the practice, payer, provider, patient, and policy levels to implement, reimburse for, and sustain the model. Strategies for overcoming barriers can assist practices in offering this transformative approach, including practices with graduate medical education programs or those serving women with clinical, demographic, or psychosocial risk factors for preterm birth.

Improving Birth Outcomes And Lowering Costs For Women On Medicaid: Impacts Of 'Strong Start For Mothers And Newborns'.

The federal Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns initiative supported alternative approaches to prenatal care, enhancing service delivery through the use of birth centers, group prenatal care, and maternity care homes. Using propensity score reweighting to control for medical and social risks, we evaluated the impacts of Strong Start's models on birth outcomes and costs by comparing the experiences of Strong Start enrollees to those of Medicaid-covered women who received typical prenatal care. We found that women who received prenatal care in birth centers had lower rates of preterm and low-birthweight infants, lower rates of cesarean section, and higher rates of vaginal birth after cesarean than did the women in the comparison groups. Improved outcomes were achieved at lower costs. There were few improvements in outcomes for participants who received group prenatal care, although their costs were lower in the prenatal period, and no improvements in outcomes for participants in maternity care homes.

Emergency Contraception Use: The Influence of Awareness, Attitudes, and Beliefs Among Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic Women in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Given persistent racial/ethnic disparities in unintended pregnancies, this study aims to understand factors associated with emergency contraception (EC) use among non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic women. METHODS: This study used a nationally representative sample of 1,990 women of reproductive age in the United States who participated in the 2016 Survey of Family Planning and Women's Lives. Logistic regressions were estimated to assess the association of sexual/pregnancy history, attitudes toward pregnancy, attitudes toward contraception, awareness and beliefs about EC, and source of information regarding contraception with ever using EC. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic characteristics, we found no significant differences in ever using EC by race/ethnicity. Among non-Hispanic White women, those who used barrier methods of contraception, reported a previous unplanned pregnancy, reported having heard some or a lot about EC, and believed that EC is somewhat to very effective had higher odds of EC use. Among non-Hispanic Black women, those who reported a previous unplanned pregnancy and believed that EC was somewhat to very effective had higher odds of EC use. Among Hispanic women, those who reported using long-acting reversible contraceptives, having recent male sexual partners, and believing that EC is both somewhat to very safe and effective had higher odds of EC use. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness and beliefs about safety and effectiveness are modifiable factors that may influence EC use. Population-level interventions can focus on improving awareness and understanding of the safety and effectiveness of EC.

Strategies to Promote Postpartum Visit Attendance Among Medicaid Participants.

Background: Postpartum care is important for promoting maternal and infant health and well-being. Nationally, less than 60% of Medicaid-enrolled women attend their postpartum visit. The Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns II Initiative, an enhanced prenatal care program, intended to improve birth outcomes among Medicaid beneficiaries, enrolled 45,599 women, and included a variety of approaches to increasing engagement in postpartum care. Methods: This study analyzes qualitative case studies that include coded notes from 739 interviews with 1,074 key informants and 133 focus groups with 951 women; 4 years of annual memos capturing activities by each of 27 awardees and 24 Birth Center sites; and a review of interview and survey data from Medicaid officials in 20 states. Results: Strong Start prenatal care included education and support regarding postpartum care and concerns. Key informants identified Strong Start services and other strategies they perceived as increasing access to postpartum care, including provider and/or care coordinator continuity across prenatal, delivery, and postpartum visits; efforts to address information gaps and link women to appropriate resources; enhancing services to meet needs such as treatment for depression; addressing barriers related to transportation and childcare; and aligning incentives to encourage prioritization of postpartum care among patients and providers. They also identified ongoing barriers to postpartum visit attendance. Conclusions: Postpartum care is essential to maternal and infant health. Medicaid enrolls many high-risk women and is the largest payer for postpartum care. Using lessons from Strong Start, providers who serve Medicaid-enrolled women can advance strategies to improve postpartum visit access and attendance.

Are there differential effects of managed care on publicly insured children with chronic health conditions?

The authors use variation across states and over time in managed care (MC) programs for publicly insured children to examine whether effects differ for children with chronic health conditions (CWCHC) and those without. The authors pool data from the 1997 to 2002 National Health Interview Survey and link county, year, and health status information on type of MC programs implemented. Findings show that the effects of MC are concentrated on CWCHC and that CWCHC experience reductions in use of specialist, mental health, and prescription drugs. Capitated programs with mental health or specialty carve-outs are associated with a greater number and larger decreases in service use compared to integrated capitated programs. While it is not possible to determine whether MC programs resulted in more appropriate use of services, corresponding reductions in perceived access were not observed, suggesting that net effects of MC on service use represent improvements in care coordination.

Facilitators and Barriers to Healthy Pregnancy Spacing among Medicaid Beneficiaries: Findings from the National Strong Start Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Closely spaced, unintended pregnancies are common among Medicaid beneficiaries and create avoidable risks for women and infants, including preterm birth. The Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, a program of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, intended to prevent preterm birth through psychosocially based enhanced prenatal care in maternity care homes, group prenatal care, and birth centers. Comprehensive care offers the opportunity for education and family planning to promote healthy pregnancy spacing. METHODS: As of March 30, 2016, there were 42,138 women enrolled in Strong Start and 23,377 women had given birth. Individual-level data were collected through three participant survey instruments and a medical chart review, and approximately one-half of women who had delivered (n = 10,374) had nonmissing responses on a postpartum survey that asked about postpartum family planning. Qualitative case studies were conducted annually for the first 3 years of the program and included 629 interviews with staff and 122 focus groups with 887 Strong Start participants. RESULTS: Most programs tried to promote healthy pregnancy spacing through family planning education and provision with some success. Group care sites in particular established protocols for patient-centered family planning education and decision making. Despite program efforts, however, barriers to uptake remained. These included state and institutional policies, provider knowledge and bias, lack of protocols for timing and content of education, and participant issues such as transportation or cultural preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The Strong Start initiative introduced a number of successful strategies for increasing women's knowledge regarding healthy pregnancy spacing and access to family planning. Multiple barriers can impact postpartum Medicaid participants' capacity to plan and space pregnancies, and addressing such issues holistically is an important strategy for facilitating healthy interpregnancy intervals.

CHIP and Medicaid: Evolving to Meet the Needs of Children.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the evolution of Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid programs after passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), focusing on policies affecting eligibility, enrollment, renewal, benefits, access to care, cost sharing, and preparation for health care reform. METHODS: Case studies were conducted in 10 states during 2012-which included key informant interviews and consumer focus groups-and a national survey of state CHIP program administrators was conducted in early 2013. RESULTS: Despite the recession that persisted during much of the study period, many states expanded children's coverage by raising upper income eligibility limits or by covering new groups made eligible by CHIPRA. Simplifying rules and procedures for enrollment and renewal continued to be a major priority for CHIP and Medicaid, and CHIPRA played a direct role in spurring innovation. CHIPRA's outreach grants played an important role in supporting and supplementing state outreach efforts. Important legacies of CHIPRA are the law's mandatory requirements for comprehensive dental benefits coverage and mental health parity for all types of CHIP programs. Although most states already offered generous coverage of these benefits, the mandate may have protected them from cuts during the economic downturn. Federal Maintenance of Effort rules were a crucial protection for CHIP, especially during the recession when state budget shortfalls could have led to program cuts. CONCLUSIONS: Passage of the Affordable Care Act has raised questions surrounding the future role of CHIP in a reformed health care system. A growing number of stakeholders have recommended a 2-year extension of federal CHIP funding to allow complex transition issues to be resolved.

Improving coverage and access for immigrant Latino children: the Los Angeles healthy kids program.

A large number of California counties have recently taken bold steps to extend health insurance to all poor and near-poor children through county-based Children's Health Initiatives. One initiative, the Los Angeles Healthy Kids program, extends coverage to uninsured children in families with incomes below 300 percent of the federal poverty level who are ineligible for Medi-Cal (California Medicaid) and Healthy Families (its State Children's Health Insurance Program). A four-year evaluation of Healthy Kids finds that the program has improved access for more than 40,000, most of whom are immigrant Latino children, who have almost no access to employer coverage. However, sustaining this effective program has proved to be challenging.

Coping with SCHIP enrollment caps: lessons from seven states' experiences.

Seven states with separate (as opposed to Medicaid expansion) State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) implemented enrollment caps during the 2001-2003 recession. Interviews with SCHIP officials and Covering Kids and Families grantees in these states examined implementation policies and their effects on enrollment, outreach, and public support. Enrollment caps were generally maintained for less than a year and resulted in large spending reductions, but enrollment declined steeply. Most key informants indicated that caps were preferable to reversals of simplified enrollment, comprehensive benefits, and low cost sharing and thus offered policymakers an important tool for controlling costs.

Effects of managed care on service use and access for publicly insured children with chronic health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to estimate the effects of managed care program type on service use and access for publicly insured children with chronic health conditions. METHODS: Data on Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program managed care programs were linked by county and year to pooled data from the 1997-2002 National Health Interview Survey. We used multivariate techniques to examine the effects of managed care program type, relative to fee-for-service, on a broad array of service use and access outcomes. RESULTS: Relative to fee-for-service, managed care program assignment was associated with selected reductions in service use but not with deterioration in reported access. Capitated managed care plans with mental health or specialty carve-outs were associated with a 7.4-percentage-point reduction in the probability of a specialist visit, a 6.3-percentage-point reduction in the probability of a mental health specialty visit, and a 5.9-percentage-point decrease in the probability of regular prescription drug use. Reductions in use associated with primary care case management and integrated capitated programs (without carve-outs) were more limited, and integrated capitated plans were associated with a reduction in unmet medical care need. We failed to find significant effects of special managed care programs for children with chronic health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Managed care is associated with reduced service use, particularly when capitated programs carve out services. This finding is of key policy importance, as the proportion of children enrolled in plans with carve-out arrangements has been increasing over time. It is not possible to determine whether reductions in services represent better care management or skimping. However, despite the reductions in use, we did not observe a corresponding increase in perceived unmet need; thus, the net change may represent improved care management.