Delivery of Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screenings During the Pandemic in Community Health Centers: Practice Changes and Recovery Strategies.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to clinical practice changes, which affected cancer preventive care delivery. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the delivery of colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (CVC) screenings. RESEARCH DESIGN: Parallel mixed methods design using electronic health record data (extracted between January 2019 and July 2021). Study results focused on 3 pandemic-related periods: March-May 2020, June-October 2020, and November 2020-September 2021. SUBJECTS: Two hundred seventeen community health centers located in 13 states and 29 semistructured interviews from 13 community health centers. MEASURES: Monthly up-to-date CRC and CVC screening rates and monthly rates of completed colonoscopies, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)/fecal occult blood test (FOBT) procedures, Papanicolaou tests among age and sex-eligible patients. Analysis used generalized estimating equations Poisson modeling. Qualitative analysts developed case summaries and created a cross-case data display for comparison. RESULTS: The results showed a reduction of 75% for colonoscopy [rate ratio (RR) = 0.250, 95% CI: 0.224-0.279], 78% for FIT/FOBT (RR = 0.218, 95% CI: 0.208-0.230), and 87% for Papanicolaou (RR = 0.130, 95% CI: 0.125-0.136) rates after the start of the pandemic. During this early pandemic period, CRC screening was impacted by hospitals halting services. Clinic staff moved toward FIT/FOBT screenings. CVC screening was impacted by guidelines encouraging pausing CVC screening, patient reluctance, and concerns about exposure. During the recovery period, leadership-driven preventive care prioritization and quality improvement capacity influenced CRC and CVC screening maintenance and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts supporting quality improvement capacity could be key actionable elements for these health centers to endure major disruptions to their care delivery system and to drive rapid recovery.

Primary Care Research: Looking Back and Moving Forward With Reflections on NAPCRG's First 50 Years.

NAPCRG celebrated 50 years of leadership and service at its 2022 meeting. A varied team of primary care investigators, clinicians, learners, patients, and community members reflected on the organization's past, present, and future. Started in 1972 by a small group of general practice researchers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, NAPCRG has evolved into an international, interprofessional, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational group devoted to improving health and health care through primary care research. NAPCRG provides a nurturing home to researchers and teams working in partnership with individuals, families, and communities. The organization builds upon enduring values to create partnerships, advance research methods, and nurture a community of contributors. NAPCRG has made foundational contributions, including identifying the need for primary care research to inform primary care practice, practice-based research networks, qualitative and mixed-methods research, community-based participatory research, patient safety, practice transformation, and partnerships with patients and communities. Landmark documents have helped define classification systems for primary care, responsible research with communities, the central role of primary care in health care systems, opportunities to revitalize generalist practice, and shared strategies to build the future of family medicine. The future of health and health care depends upon strengthening primary care and primary care research with stronger support, infrastructure, training, and workforce. New technologies offer opportunities to advance research, enhance care, and improve outcomes. Stronger partnerships can empower primary care research with patients and communities and increase commitments to diversity and quality care for all. NAPCRG offers a home for all partners in this work.

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion and access to primary-care based smoking cessation assistance among cancer survivors: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking among cancer survivors can increase the risk of cancer reoccurrence, reduce treatment effectiveness and decrease quality of life. Cancer survivors without health insurance have higher rates of smoking and decreased probability of quitting smoking than cancer survivors with health insurance. This study examines the associations of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid insurance expansion with smoking cessation assistance and quitting smoking among cancer survivors seen in community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: Using electronic health record data from 337 primary care community health centers in 12 states that expanded Medicaid eligibility and 273 CHCs in 8 states that did not expand, we identified adult cancer survivors with a smoking status indicating current smoking within 6 months prior to ACA expansion in 2014 and ≥ 1 visit with smoking status assessed within 24-months post-expansion. Using an observational cohort propensity score weighted approach and logistic generalized estimating equation regression, we compared odds of quitting smoking, having a cessation medication ordered, and having ≥6 visits within the post-expansion period among cancer survivors in Medicaid expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: Cancer survivors in expansion states had higher odds of having a smoking cessation medication order (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.54, 95%CI = 1.61-4.03) and higher odds of having ≥6 office visits than those in non-expansion states (aOR = 1.82, 95%CI = 1.22-2.73). Odds of quitting smoking did not differ significantly between patients in Medicaid expansion versus non-expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: The increased odds of having a smoking cessation medication order among cancer survivors seen in Medicaid expansion states compared with those seen in non-expansion states provides evidence of the importance of health insurance coverage in accessing evidence-based tobacco treatment within CHCs. Continued research is needed to understand why, despite increased odds of having a cessation medication prescribed, odds of quitting smoking were not significantly higher among cancer survivors in Medicaid expansion states compared to non-expansion states.

Shared Language for Shared Work in Population Health.

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms-the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic-groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities-with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict.

Effectiveness of an insurance enrollment support tool on insurance rates and cancer prevention in community health centers: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Following the ACA, millions of people gained Medicaid insurance. Most electronic health record (EHR) tools to date provide clinical-decision support and tracking of clinical biomarkers, we developed an EHR tool to support community health center (CHC) staff in assisting patients with health insurance enrollment documents and tracking insurance application steps. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of the health insurance support tool in (1) assisting uninsured patients gaining insurance coverage, (2) ensuring insurance continuity for patients with Medicaid insurance (preventing coverage gaps between visits); and (3) improving receipt of cancer preventive care. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental study, twenty-three clinics received the intervention (EHR-based insurance support tool) and were matched to 23 comparison clinics. CHCs were recruited from the OCHIN network. EHR data were linked to Medicaid enrollment data. The primary outcomes were rates of uninsured and Medicaid visits. The secondary outcomes were receipt of recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings. A comparative interrupted time-series using Poisson generalized estimated equation (GEE) modeling was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EHR-based tool on the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Immediately following implementation of the enrollment tool, the uninsured visit rate decreased by 21.0% (Adjusted Rate Ratio [RR] = 0.790, 95% CI = 0.621-1.005, p = .055) while Medicaid-insured visits increased by 4.5% (ARR = 1.045, 95% CI = 1.013-1.079) in the intervention group relative to comparison group. Cervical cancer preventive ratio increased 5.0% (ARR = 1.050, 95% CI = 1.009-1.093) immediately following implementation of the enrollment tool in the intervention group relative to comparison group. Among patients with a tool use, 81% were enrolled in Medicaid 12 months after tool use. For the 19% who were never enrolled in Medicaid following tool use, most were uninsured (44%) at the time of tool use. CONCLUSIONS: A health insurance support tool embedded within the EHR can effectively support clinic staff in assisting patients in maintaining their Medicaid coverage. Such tools may also have an indirect impact on evidence-based practice interventions, such as cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered on February 4th, 2015 with Clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02355262). The registry record can be found at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02355262 .

The Affordable Care Act improved health insurance coverage and cardiovascular-related screening rates for cancer survivors seen in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the impact of Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on health insurance rates and receipt of cardiovascular-related preventive screenings (body mass index, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], low-density lipoproteins, and blood pressure) for cancer survivors seen in community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: This study identified cancer survivors aged 19 to 64 years with at least 3 CHC visits in 13 states from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network (ADVANCE). Via inverse probability of treatment weighting multilevel multinomial modeling, insurance rates before and after the ACA were estimated by whether a patient lived in a state that expanded Medicaid, and changes between a pre-ACA time period and 2 post-ACA time periods were assessed. RESULTS: The weighted estimated sample size included 409 cancer survivors in nonexpansion states and 2650 in expansion states. In expansion states, the proportion of uninsured cancer survivors decreased significantly from 20.3% in 2012-2013 to 4.5%in 2016-2017, and the proportion of those with Medicaid coverage increased significantly from 38.8% to 55.6%. In nonexpansion states, there was a small decrease in uninsurance rates (from 33.6% in 2012-2013 to 22.5% in 2016-2017). Cardiovascular-related preventive screening rates increased over time in both expansion and nonexpansion states: HbA1c rates nearly doubled from the pre-ACA period (2012-2013) to the post-ACA period (2016-2017) in expansion states (from 7.2% to 12.8%) and nonexpansion states (from 9.3% to 16.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study found a substantial decline in uninsured visits among cancer survivors in Medicaid expansion states. Yet, 1 in 5 cancer survivors living in a state that did not expand Medicaid remained uninsured. Several ACA provisions likely worked together to increase cardiovascular-related preventive screening rates for cancer survivors seen in CHCs.

Using Electronic Health Records in Longitudinal Studies: Estimating Patient Attrition.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) provide rich data on many domains not routinely available in other data, as such, they are a promising source to study changes in health outcomes using longitudinal study designs (eg, cohort studies, natural experiments, etc.). Yet, patient attrition rates in these data are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate overall and among adults with diabetes or hypertension: (1) patient attrition over a 3-year period at community health centers; and (2) the likelihood that patients with Medicaid permanently switched their source of primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of 2012-2017 data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network (ADVANCE) Clinical Data Research Network of community health centers were used to assess EHR data attrition. Oregon Medicaid enrollment and claims data were used to estimate the likelihood of changing the source of primary care. SUBJECTS: A total of 827,657 patients aged 19-64 with ≥1 ambulatory visit from 76 community health center systems across 20 states. In all, 232,891 Oregon Medicaid enrollees (aged 19-64) with a gap of ≥6 months following a claim for a visit billed to a primary care source. MEASURES: Percentage of patients not returning within 3 years of their qualifying visit (attrition). The probability that a patient with Medicaid permanently changed their primary care source. RESULTS: Attrition over the 3 years averaged 33.5%; attrition rates were lower (<25%) among patients with diabetes and/or hypertension. Among Medicaid enrollees, the percentage of provider change after a 6-month gap between visits was 12% for community health center patients compared with 39% for single-provider practice patients. Over 3 years, the likelihood of a patient changing to a new provider increased with length of time since their last visit but remained lowest among community health center patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the use of the EHR dataset is a reliable source of data to support longitudinal studies while highlighting variability in attrition by primary care source and chronic conditions.

Payment for Contraceptive Services in Safety Net Clinics: Roles of Affordable Care Act, Title X, and State Programs.

OBJECTIVES: We describe payor for contraceptive visits 2013-2014, before and after Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in a large network of safety-net clinics. We estimate changes in the proportion of uninsured contraceptive visits and the independent associations of the ACA, Title X, and state family planning programs. METHODS: Our sample included 237 safety net clinics in 11 states with a common electronic health record. We identified contraception-related visits among women aged 10-49 years using diagnosis and procedure codes. Our primary outcome was an indicator of an uninsured visit. We also assessed payor type (public/private). We included encounter, clinic, county, and state-level covariates. We used interrupted time series and logistic regression, and calculated multivariable absolute predicted probabilities. RESULTS: We identified 162,666 contraceptive visits in 219 clinics. There was a significant decline in uninsured contraception-related visits in both Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states, with a slightly greater decline in expansion states (difference-in-difference: -1.29 percentage points; confidence interval: -1.39 to -1.19). The gap in uninsured visits between expansion and nonexpansion states widened after ACA implementation (from 2.17 to 4.1 percentage points). The Title X program continues to fill gaps in insurance in Medicaid expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured contraceptive visits at safety net clinics decreased following Medicaid expansion under the ACA in both expansion and nonexpansion states. Overall, levels of uninsured visits are lower in expansion states. Title X continues to play an important role in access to care and coverage. In addition to protecting insurance gains under the ACA, Title X and state programs should continue to be a focus of research and advocacy.

Redesigning Primary Care to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Midst of the Pandemic.

During a pandemic, primary care is the first line of defense. It is able to reinforce public health messages, help patients manage at home, and identify those in need of hospital care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care scrambled to rapidly transform itself and protect clinicians, staff, and patients while remaining connected to patients. Using the established public health framework for addressing a pandemic, we describe the actions primary care needs to take in a pandemic. Recommended actions are based on observed experiences of the authors' primary care practices and networks. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, tasks focused on promoting physical distancing and encouraging patients with suspected illness or exposure to self-quarantine. Testing was not available and contract tracing was not possible. As the pandemic spread, in-person care was converted to virtual care using telehealth. Practices remained connected to patients using registries to reach out to those at risk for infection, with uncontrolled chronic conditions, or were socially vulnerable. Practices managed most patients with suspected COVID-19 at home. As the pandemic decelerates, practices are now preparing to address the direct and indirect consequences-complications from COVID-19 infections, missed treatment for acute problems, inadequate prevention, uncontrolled chronic disease, mental illness, and greater social needs. Throughout, practices bore tremendous financial burden, laying off staff or even closing at a time when most needed. Primary care must learn from this experience and be ready for the next pandemic. Policymakers and payers cannot fail primary care during their next time of need.

Tobacco Cessation in Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion States Versus Non-expansion States.

INTRODUCTION: Community health centers (CHCs) care for vulnerable patients who use tobacco at higher than national rates. States that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided insurance coverage to tobacco users not previously Medicaid-eligible, thereby potentially increasing their odds of receiving cessation assistance. We examined if tobacco users in Medicaid expansion states had increased quit rates, cessation medications ordered, and greater health care utilization compared to patients in non-expansion states. METHODS: Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 219 CHCs in 10 states that expanded Medicaid as of January 1, 2014, we identified patients aged 19-64 with tobacco use status documented in the EHR within 6 months prior to ACA Medicaid expansion and ≥1 visit with tobacco use status assessed within 24 months post-expansion (January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015). We propensity score matched these patients to tobacco users from 108 CHCs in six non-expansion states (n = 27 670 matched pairs; 55 340 patients). Using a retrospective observational cohort study design, we compared odds of having a quit status, cessation medication ordered, and ≥6 visits within the post-expansion period among patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: Patients in expansion states had increased adjusted odds of quitting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-1.43), having a medication ordered (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.44-1.62), and having ≥6 follow-up visits (aOR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.28-1.41) compared to patients from non-expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to insurance via the ACA Medicaid expansion likely led to increased quit rates within this vulnerable population. IMPLICATIONS: CHCs care for vulnerable patients at higher risk of tobacco use than the general population. Medicaid expansion via the ACA provided insurance coverage to a large number of tobacco users not previously Medicaid-eligible. We found that expanded insurance coverage was associated with increased cessation assistance and higher odds of tobacco cessation. Continued provision of insurance coverage could lead to increased quit rates among high-risk populations, resulting in improvements in population health outcomes and reduced total health care costs.

Cervical and colorectal cancer screening prevalence before and after Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

Community health centers (CHCs), which serve socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, experienced an increase in insured visits after the 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage options began. Yet, little is known about how cancer screening rates changed post-ACA. Therefore, this study assessed changes in the prevalence of cervical and colorectal cancer screening from pre- to post-ACA in expansion and non-expansion states among patients seen in CHCs. Electronic health record data on 624,601 non-pregnant patients aged 21-64 eligible for cervical or colorectal cancer screening between 1/1/2012 and 12/31/2015 from 203 CHCs were analyzed. We assessed changes in prevalence and screening likelihood among patients, by insurance type and race/ethnicity and compared Medicaid expansion and non-expansion states using difference-in-difference methodology. Female patients had 19% increased odds of receiving cervical cancer screening post- relative to pre-ACA in expansion states [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-1.31] and 23% increased odds in non-expansion states (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.05-1.46): the greatest increase was among uninsured patients in expansion states (aOR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.16-1.59) and privately-insured patients in non-expansion states (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.11-1.84). Colorectal cancer screening prevalence increased from 11% to 18% pre- to post-ACA in expansion states and from 13% to 21% in non-expansion states. For most outcomes, the observed changes were not significantly different between expansion and non-expansion states. Despite increased prevalences of cervical and colorectal cancer screening in both expansion and non-expansion states across all race/ethnicity groups, rates remained suboptimal for this population of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

Following Uninsured Patients Through Medicaid Expansion: Ambulatory Care Use and Diagnosed Conditions.

PURPOSE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has improved access to health insurance, yet millions remain uninsured. Many patients who remain uninsured access care at community health centers (CHCs); however, little is known about their health conditions and health care use. We assessed ambulatory care use and diagnosed health conditions among a cohort of CHC patients uninsured before enactment of the ACA (pre-ACA: January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013) and followed them after enactment (post-ACA: January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015). METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis used electronic health record data from CHCs in 11 US states that expanded Medicaid eligibility. We assessed ambulatory care visits and documented health conditions among a cohort of 138,246 patients (aged 19 to 64 years) who were uninsured pre-ACA and either remained uninsured, gained Medicaid, gained other health insurance, or did not have a visit post-ACA. We estimated adjusted predicted probabilities of ambulatory care use using an ordinal logistic mixed-effects regression model. RESULTS: Post-ACA, 20.9% of patients remained uninsured, 15.0% gained Medicaid, 12.4% gained other insurance, and 51.7% did not have a visit. The majority of patients had ≥1 diagnosed health condition. The adjusted proportion of patients with high use (≥6 visits over 2 years) increased from pre-ACA to post-ACA among those who gained Medicaid (pre-ACA: 23%, post-ACA: 34%, P <.001) or gained other insurance (pre-ACA: 29%, post-ACA: 48%, P <.001), whereas the percentage fell slightly for those continuously uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of CHC patients remained uninsured; many who remained uninsured had diagnosed health conditions, and one-half continued to have ≥3 visits to CHCs. CHCs continue to be essential providers for uninsured patients.

Oregon Medicaid Expenditures After the 2014 Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion: Over-time Differences Among New, Returning, and Continuously Insured Enrollees.

BACKGROUND: There is interest in assessing health care utilization and expenditures among new Medicaid enrollees after the 2014 Medicaid expansion. Recent studies have not differentiated between newly enrolled individuals and those returning after coverage gaps. OBJECTIVES: To assess health care expenditures among Medicaid enrollees in the 24 months after Oregon's 2014 Medicaid expansions and examine whether expenditure patterns were different among the newly, returning, and continuously insured (CI). RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using inverse-propensity weights to adjust for differences between groups. SUBJECTS: Oregon adult Medicaid beneficiaries insured continuously from 2014 to 2015 who were either newly, returning, or CI. MEASURES: Monthly expenditures for inpatient care, prescription drugs, total outpatient care, and subdivisions of outpatient care: emergency department, dental, mental and behavioral health, primary care, and specialist care. RESULTS: After initial increases, newly and returning insured (RI) outpatient expenditures dropped below CI. Expenditures for emergency department and dental services among the RI remained higher than among the newly insured. Newly insured mental and behavioral health, primary care, and specialist expenditures plateaued higher than RI. Prescription drug expenditures increased over time for all groups, with CI highest and RI lowest. All groups had similar inpatient expenditures over 24 months post-Medicaid expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal that outpatient expenditures for new nonpregnant, non-dual-eligible Oregon Medicaid recipients stabilized over time after meeting pent-up demand, and prior insurance history affected the mix of services that individuals received. Policy evaluations should consider expenditures over at least 24 months and should account for enrollees' prior insurance histories.

Building Meaningful Patient Engagement in Research: Case Study From ADVANCE Clinical Data Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to engage patients to improve and enhance research and clinical care are increasingly being implemented in the United States, yet little is known about best practices for or the impacts of meaningful patient engagement. OBJECTIVE: We describe and reflect on our patient stakeholder groups, engagement framework, experiences, and lessons learned in engaging patients in research, from generating proposal ideas to disseminating findings. SETTING: The ADVANCE (Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network) clinical data research network is the nation's largest clinical dataset on the safety net, with outpatient clinical data from 122 health systems (1109 clinics) in 23 states. RESULTS: Patients stakeholders codeveloped the ADVANCE engagement framework and its implementation in partnership with network leaders. In phase I of ADVANCE, patients were involved with designing studies (input on primary outcome measures and methods) and usability testing (of the patient portal). In phase II, the network is prioritizing research training, dissemination opportunities, an "ambassador" program to pair more experienced patient stakeholders with those less experienced, and evaluation of engagement activities and impacts. DISCUSSION: The ADVANCE framework for patient engagement has successfully involved a diverse group of patients in the design, implementation, and interpretation of comparative effectiveness research. Our experience and framework can be used by other organizations and research networks to support patient engagement activities.

Electronic health record tools to assist with children's insurance coverage: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Children with health insurance have increased access to healthcare and receive higher quality care. However, despite recent initiatives expanding children's coverage, many remain uninsured. New technologies present opportunities for helping clinics provide enrollment support for patients. We developed and tested electronic health record (EHR)-based tools to help clinics provide children's insurance assistance. METHODS: We used mixed methods to understand tool adoption, and to assess impact of tool use on insurance coverage, healthcare utilization, and receipt of recommended care. We conducted intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses comparing pediatric patients in 4 intervention clinics (n = 15,024) to those at 4 matched control clinics (n = 12,227). We conducted effect-of-treatment-on-the-treated (ETOT) analyses comparing intervention clinic patients with tool use (n = 2240) to intervention clinic patients without tool use (n = 12,784). RESULTS: Tools were used for only 15% of eligible patients. Qualitative data indicated that tool adoption was limited by: (1) concurrent initiatives that duplicated the work associated with the tools, and (2) inability to obtain accurate insurance coverage data and end dates. The ITT analyses showed that intervention clinic patients had higher odds of gaining insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.14-1.51) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.68-0.88), compared to control clinic patients. Similarly, ETOT findings showed that intervention clinic patients with tool use had higher odds of gaining insurance (aOR = 1.83, 95%CI 1.64-2.04) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.53-0.91), compared to patients without tool use. The ETOT analyses also showed higher rates of receipt of return visits, well-child visits, and several immunizations among patients for whom the tools were used. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic trial, the first to evaluate EHR-based insurance assistance tools, suggests that it is feasible to create and implement tools that help clinics provide insurance enrollment support to pediatric patients. While ITT findings were limited by low rates of tool use, ITT and ETOT findings suggest tool use was associated with better odds of gaining and keeping coverage. Further, ETOT findings suggest that use of such tools may positively impact healthcare utilization and quality of pediatric care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02298361 ; retrospectively registered on November 5, 2014.

Medicaid's Impact on Chronic Disease Biomarkers: A Cohort Study of Community Health Center Patients.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of health insurance is critical, particularly in the era of Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. The electronic health record (EHR) provides new opportunities to quantify health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in biomarkers of chronic disease among community health center (CHC) patients who gained Medicaid coverage with the Oregon Medicaid expansion (2008-2011). DESIGN: Prospective cohort. Patients were followed for 24 months, and rate of mean biomarker change was calculated. Time to a controlled follow-up measurement was compared using Cox regression models. SETTING/PATIENTS: Using EHR data from OCHIN (a non-profit network of CHCs) linked to state Medicaid data, we identified three cohorts of patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia). Within these cohorts, we included patients who gained Medicaid coverage along with a propensity score-matched comparison group who remained uninsured (diabetes n = 608; hypertension n = 1244; hyperlipidemia n = 546). MAIN MEASURES: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) for the diabetes cohort, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively) for the hypertension cohort, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) for the hyperlipidemia cohort. KEY RESULTS: All cohorts improved over time. Compared to matched uninsured patients, adults in the diabetes and hypertension cohorts who gained Medicaid coverage were significantly more likely to have a follow-up controlled measurement (hazard ratio [HR] =1.26, p = 0.020; HR = 1.35, p < 0.001, respectively). No significant difference was observed in the hyperlipidemia cohort (HR = 1.09, p = 0.392). CONCLUSIONS: OCHIN patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions experienced objective health improvements over time. In two of three chronic disease cohorts, those who gained Medicaid coverage were more likely to achieve a controlled measurement than those who remained uninsured. These findings demonstrate the effective care provided by CHCs and the importance of health insurance coverage within a usual source of care setting. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02355132 [ https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02355132 ].

Uninsured Primary Care Visit Disparities Under the Affordable Care Act.

PURPOSE: Health insurance coverage affects a patient's ability to access optimal care, the percentage of insured patients on a clinic's panel has an impact on the clinic's ability to provide needed health care services, and there are racial and ethnic disparities in coverage in the United States. Thus, we aimed to assess changes in insurance coverage at community health center (CHC) visits after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion by race and ethnicity. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective, observational study of visit payment type for CHC patients aged 19 to 64 years. We used electronic health record data from 10 states that expanded Medicaid and 6 states that did not, 359 CHCs, and 870,319 patients with more than 4 million visits. Our analyses included difference-in-difference (DD) and difference-in-difference-in-difference (DDD) estimates via generalized estimating equation models. The primary outcome was health insurance type at each visit (Medicaid-insured, uninsured, or privately insured). RESULTS: After the ACA was implemented, uninsured visit rates decreased for all racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic patients experienced the greatest increases in Medicaid-insured visit rates after ACA implementation in expansion states (rate ratio [RR] = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02) and the largest gains in privately insured visit rates in nonexpansion states (RR = 3.63; 95% CI, 2.73-4.83). In expansion states, non-Hispanic white patients had twice the magnitude of decrease in uninsured visits compared with Hispanic patients (DD = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.53-2.70), and this relative change was more than 2 times greater in expansion states compared with nonexpansion states (DDD = 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.78). CONCLUSION: The lower rates of uninsured visits for all racial and ethnic groups after ACA implementation suggest progress in expanding coverage to CHC patients; this progress, however, was not uniform when comparing expansion with nonexpansion states and among all racial and ethnic minority subgroups. These findings suggest the need for continued and more equitable insurance expansion efforts to eliminate health insurance disparities.