Screening for Financial Hardship: Comparing Patient Survey Responses Using Two Different Screening Tools.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare delivery organizations are increasingly screening patients for social risks using tools that vary in content and length. OBJECTIVES: To compare two screening tools both containing questions related to financial hardship. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of adult patients (n = 471) in three primary care clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Participants randomly assigned to self-complete either: (1) a screening tool developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) consisting of six questions on financial hardship (housing stability, housing quality, food security, transportation security, utilities security); or (2) social and behavioral risk measures recommended by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), including one question on financial hardship (financial strain). We compared patient acceptability of screening, positive screening rates for financial hardship, patient interest in assistance, and self-rated health. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of eligible/interested patients completed the relevant survey questions to be included in the study (N = 471/516). Patient acceptability was high for both tools, though more participants reported screening was appropriate when answering the CMS versus NAM questions (87% vs. 79%, p = 0.02). Of respondents completing the CMS tool, 57% (132/232) reported at least one type of financial hardship; on the NAM survey, 52% (125/239) reported financial hardship (p = 0.36). Nearly twice as many respondents indicated interest in assistance related to financial hardship after completing items on the CMS tool than on the NAM question (39% vs. 21%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported high acceptability of both social risk assessment tools. While rates of positive screens for financial hardship were similar across the two measures, more patients indicated interest in assistance after answering questions about financial hardship on the CMS tool. This might be because the screening questions on the CMS tool help patients to appreciate the types of assistance related to financial hardship that may be available after screening. Future research should assess the validity and comparative validity of individual measures and measure sets. Tool selection should be based on setting and population served, screening goals, and resources available.

Patient Perspectives on Social Risk Screening and Documentation in a Dermatology Clinic.

Importance: Providing person-centered dermatologic care includes consideration of social risk factors, such as housing instability and unreliable transportation, that may affect clinical management. Patients' perspectives on social risk screening and documentation in dermatology clinics have not yet been evaluated. Objective: To understand patients' perspectives on social risk screening and documentation in a dermatology clinic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study used a survey and semistructured interviews and was conducted in a general dermatology clinic at a large urban public hospital. Patients at the clinic were eligible to complete the survey if they were 18 years or older; able to speak and read English, Spanish, or Cantonese; and comfortable using a computer tablet. Survey participants who preferred to use English were eligible for interviews. The survey included social risk screening questions, measures of acceptability, and questions on social risk factors associated with patient acceptability. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore attitudes and beliefs about social risk screening and documentation. Survey and interview findings were integrated during data analysis through development of themes and joint display. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 2 outcome measures of acceptability: appropriateness of screening in a dermatology clinic and comfort with documentation of social risk in the electronic health record (EHR). Results: A total of 135 participants (including 73 males [54.1%]) answered both measures of acceptability in the survey. Of these participants, 116 (85.9%) reported that social risk screening in their dermatology clinic was very or somewhat appropriate and 85 (63.0%) reported being completely or somewhat comfortable with having their social risks documented in the EHR. Themes that were developed from surveys and interviews were the (1) role of interpersonal factors in willingness to disclose social risks, (2) implications of institutional trust for willingness to disclose and comfort with documentation, and (3) relevance of screening in a dermatology clinic. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed that most participants found social risk screening to be appropriate in a dermatology clinic, although a smaller proportion of participants were comfortable with EHR documentation of their social risks. Optimizing patients' trust in their physicians and the medical system, while addressing privacy and discrimination concerns, may help facilitate disclosure of social risks.

"Wanting the Best for Our Folks"-A Mixed Methods Analysis of Community Health Center Social Risk Screening Initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Many community health centers (CHC) are scaling social risk screening in response to growing awareness of the influence of social adversity on health outcomes and concurrent incentives for social risk data collection. We studied the implementation of social risk screening in Texas CHCs to inform best practices and understand equity implications. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods of 3 data sources. Using interviews and surveys with CHC providers and staff, we explored social risk screening practices to identify barriers and facilitators; we used electronic health record (EHR) data to assess screening reach and disparities in screening. RESULTS: Across 4 urban/suburban Texas CHCs, we conducted 27 interviews (15 providers/12 staff) and collected 97 provider surveys; 2 CHCs provided EHR data on 18,672 patients screened during the study period. Data revealed 2 cross-cutting themes: 1) there was broad support for social risk screening/care integration that was rooted in CHCs' mission and positionalities, and 2) barriers to social risk screening efforts were largely a result of limited time and staffing. Though EHR data showed screens per month and screens/encounters increased peri-pandemic (4.1% of encounters in 8/2019 to 46.1% in 2/2021), there were significant differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity and preferred language (P < .001). In surveys, 90.0% of surveyed providers reported incorporating social risk screening into patient conversations; 28.6% were unaware their clinic had an embedded screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: Study CHCs were in the early stages of standardizing social risk screening. Differences in screening reach by patient demographics raise concerns that social screening initiatives, which often serve as a path to resource/service connection, might exacerbate disparities. Overcoming barriers to reach, sustainability, and equity requires supports targeted to program design/development, workforce capacity, and quality improvement.

Evaluating the comparability of patient-level social risk data extracted from electronic health records: A systematic scoping review.

Objective: To evaluate how and from where social risk data are extracted from EHRs for research purposes, and how observed differences may impact study generalizability. Methods: Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed literature that used patient-level EHR data to assess 1 ± 6 social risk domains: housing, transportation, food, utilities, safety, social support/isolation. Results: 111/9022 identified articles met inclusion criteria. By domain, social support/isolation was most often included (N = 68/111), predominantly defined by marital/partner status (N = 48/68) and extracted from structured sociodemographic data (N = 45/48). Housing risk was defined primarily by homelessness (N = 39/49). Structured housing data was extracted most from billing codes and screening tools (N = 15/30, 13/30, respectively). Across domains, data were predominantly sourced from structured fields (N = 89/111) versus unstructured free text (N = 32/111). Conclusion: We identified wide variability in how social domains are defined and extracted from EHRs for research. More consistency, particularly in how domains are operationalized, would enable greater insights across studies.

Addressing Health-Related Social Needs Via Community Resources: Lessons From Accountable Health Communities.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model in 2017 to assess whether identifying and addressing Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries' health-related social needs reduced health care use and spending. We surveyed a subset of AHC Model beneficiaries with one or more health-related social needs and two or more emergency department visits in the prior twelve months to assess their use of community services and whether their needs were resolved. Survey findings indicated that navigation-connecting eligible patients with community services-did not significantly increase the rate of community service provider connections or the rate of needs resolution, relative to a randomized control group. Findings from interviews with AHC Model staff, community service providers, and beneficiaries identified challenges connecting beneficiaries to community services. When connections were made, resources often were insufficient to resolve beneficiaries' needs. For navigation to be successful, investments in additional resources to assist beneficiaries in their communities may be required.

Automatic extraction of social determinants of health from medical notes of chronic lower back pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: We applied natural language processing and inference methods to extract social determinants of health (SDoH) information from clinical notes of patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) to enhance future analyses of the associations between SDoH disparities and cLBP outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical notes for patients with cLBP were annotated for 7 SDoH domains, as well as depression, anxiety, and pain scores, resulting in 626 notes with at least one annotated entity for 364 patients. We used a 2-tier taxonomy with these 10 first-level classes (domains) and 52 second-level classes. We developed and validated named entity recognition (NER) systems based on both rule-based and machine learning approaches and validated an entailment model. RESULTS: Annotators achieved a high interrater agreement (Cohen's kappa of 95.3% at document level). A rule-based system (cTAKES), RoBERTa NER, and a hybrid model (combining rules and logistic regression) achieved performance of F1 = 47.1%, 84.4%, and 80.3%, respectively, for first-level classes. DISCUSSION: While the hybrid model had a lower F1 performance, it matched or outperformed RoBERTa NER model in terms of recall and had lower computational requirements. Applying an untuned RoBERTa entailment model, we detected many challenging wordings missed by NER systems. Still, the entailment model may be sensitive to hypothesis wording. CONCLUSION: This study developed a corpus of annotated clinical notes covering a broad spectrum of SDoH classes. This corpus provides a basis for training machine learning models and serves as a benchmark for predictive models for NER for SDoH and knowledge extraction from clinical texts.

Perceived Appropriateness of Assessing for Health-related Socioeconomic Risks Among Adult Patients with Cancer.

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs. Significance: National organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs.

Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the health impacts of social conditions has led US healthcare systems to consider identifying and addressing social adversity-e.g. food, housing, and transportation insecurity-in care delivery settings. Social screening is one strategy being used to gather patient information about social circumstances at the point of care. While several recent studies describe the rapid proliferation of social screening activities, little work has explored either why or how to implement social screening in clinical settings. Our study objectives were to assess diverse healthcare stakeholder perspectives on both the rationale for social screening and evidence needed to inform practice and policy-relevant implementation decisions. METHODS: We convened five focus groups with US experts representing different stakeholder groups: patient advocates, community-based organizations, healthcare professionals, payers, and policymakers. In total, 39 experts participated in approximately 90-minute long focus groups conducted between January-March 2021. A inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze discussions. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from focus groups, each reflecting the tension between the national enthusiasm for screening and existing evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of screening in clinical settings: (1) ambiguity about the rationale for social screening; (2) concerns about the relavence of screening tools and approaches, particularly for historically marginalized populations; (3) lack of clarity around the resources needed for implementation and scaling. CONCLUSION: While participants across groups described potential benefits of social screening, they also highlighted knowledge gaps that interfered with realizing these benefits. Efforts to minimize and ideally resolve these knowledge gaps will advance future social screening practice and policy.

Patient and Patient Caregiver Perspectives on Social Screening: A Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Health care policy and practice-level enthusiasm around social screening has emerged in the absence of a clear appreciation for how patients feel about these activities. Yet patient and caregiver perspectives should be used to establish the rationale and inform the design and implementation of social screening initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review to better understand patient and patient caregiver perspectives regarding multidomain social screening in US health care settings. RESULTS: We identified 16 articles. Thirteen studies assessed the perspectives of patients; a partially overlapping 9 studies assessed the perspectives of adult patient caregivers. Most articles assessing the acceptability of social screening reported that patients and patient caregivers generally found it to be acceptable. Notably, there was some variation by screening approach and prior experiences in health care settings, as well as mixed findings by race/ethnicity and gender. Participants from several articles raised concerns regarding data documentation and sharing, highlighting the potential for social data to contribute to provider bias. CONCLUSION: The themes emerging in this diverse set of largely descriptive studies warrant deeper and more rigorous exploration as social screening initiatives expand in health care settings across the United States.

Social risks and social needs in a health insurance exchange sample: a longitudinal evaluation of utilization.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are increasingly attempting to intervene on social adversity as a strategy to improve health care outcomes. To inform health system efforts to screen for social adversity, we sought to explore the stability of social risk and interest in assistance over time and to evaluate whether the social risk was associated with subsequent healthcare utilization. METHODS: We surveyed Kaiser Permanente members receiving subsidies from the healthcare exchange in Southern California to assess their social risk and desire for assistance using the Accountable Health Communities instrument. A subset of initial respondents was randomized to be re-surveyed at either three or six months later. RESULTS: A total of 228 participants completed the survey at both time points. Social risks were moderate to strongly stable across three and six months (Kappa range = .59-.89); however, social adversity profiles that included participants' desire for assistance were more labile (3-month Kappa = .52; 95% CI = .41-.64 & 6-month Kappa = .48; 95% CI = .36-.6). Only housing-related social risks were associated with an increase in acute care (emergency, urgent care) six months after initial screening; no other associations between social risk and utilization were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that screening for social risk may be appropriate at intervals of six months, or perhaps longer, but that assessing desire for assistance may need to occur more frequently. Housing risks were associated with increases in acute care. Health systems may need to engage in screening and referral to resources to improve overall care and ultimately patient total health.

"Beyond Just a Supplement": Administrators' Visions for the Future of Virtual Primary Care Services.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adoption and implementation of virtual primary care services, and little is known about whether and how virtual care services will be provided after the pandemic ends. We aim to identify how administrators at health care organizations perceive the future of virtual primary care services. METHODS: In March-April of 2021, we conducted semistructured qualitative phone interviews with administrators at 17 health care organizations that ranged from multi-state nonfederal delivery systems to single-site primary care practices. Organizations differed in size, structure, ownership, and geography. We explore how health care administrators anticipate their organization will offer virtual primary care services after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. RESULTS: All interviewed administrators expected virtual primary care services to persist after the pandemic. We categorize expected impact of future virtual services as limited (n = 4); targeted to a narrow set of clinical encounters (n = 5); and a major shift in primary care delivery (n = 8). The underlying motivation expressed by administrators for providing virtual care services was to remain financially stable and competitive. This motivation can be seen in the 3 main goals described for their anticipated use of virtual services: (1) optimizing medical services; (2) enhancing the patient experience; and (3) increasing loyalty among patients. CONCLUSIONS: Health care organizations are considering how virtual primary care services can be used to improve patient outcomes, access to care, and convenience of care. To implement and sustain virtual primary care services, health care organizations will need long-term support from regulators and payers.

Social Risk Factors and Desire for Assistance Among Patients Receiving Subsidized Health Care Insurance in a US-Based Integrated Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Because social conditions such as food insecurity and housing instability shape health outcomes, health systems are increasingly screening for and addressing patients' social risks. This study documented the prevalence of social risks and examined the desire for assistance in addressing those risks in a US-based integrated delivery system. METHODS: A survey was administered to Kaiser Permanente members on subsidized exchange health insurance plans (2018-2019). The survey included questions about 4 domains of social risks, desire for help, and attitudes. We conducted a descriptive analysis and estimated multivariate modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 438 participants, 212 (48%) reported at least 1 social risk factor. Housing instability was the most common (70%) factor reported. Members with social risks reported more discomfort being screened for social risks (14.2% vs 5.4%; P = .002) than those without risks, although 90% of participants believed that health systems should assist in addressing social risks. Among those with 1-2 social risks, however, only 27% desired assistance. Non-Hispanic Black participants who reported a social risk were more than twice as likely to desire assistance compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Athough most survey participants believed health systems have a role in addressing social risks, a minority of those reporting a risk wanted assistance and reported more discomfort being screened for risk factors than those without risks. Health systems should work to increase the comfort of patients in reporting risks, explore how to successfully assist them when desired, and offer resources to address these risks outside the health care sector.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Screening for Interpersonal Violence: Missed Opportunities and Potential Harms.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11. CONCLUSIONS: Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Screening Discordance and Characteristics of Patients With Housing-Related Social Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems are increasingly interested in identifying patients' housing-related risks, but minimal information exists to inform screening question selection. The primary study aim is to evaluate discordance among 5 housing-related screening questions used in health care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional multisite survey of social risks used in a convenience sample of adults seeking care for themselves or their child at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states (2018-2019). Housing-related risks were measured using 2 questions from the Accountable Health Communities screening tool (current/anticipated housing instability, current housing quality problems) and 3 from the Children's HealthWatch recommended housing instability screening measures (prior 12-month: rent/mortgage strain, number of moves, current/recent homelessness). The 2-sided Fisher's exact tests analyzed housing-related risks and participant characteristics; logistic regression explored associations with reported health (2019-2020). RESULTS: Of 835 participants, 52% screened positive for ≥1 housing-related risk (n=430). Comparing the tools, 32.8% (n=274) screened discordant: 11.9% (n=99) screened positive by Children's HealthWatch questions but negative by Accountable Health Communities, and 21.0% (n=175) screened positive by the Accountable Health Communities tool but negative by Children's HealthWatch (p<0.001). Worse health was associated with screening positive for current/anticipated housing instability (AOR=0.56, 95% CI=0.32, 0.96) or current/recent homelessness (AOR=0.57, 95% CI=0.34, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 housing questions captured different housing-related risks, contributed to different health consequences, and were relevant to different subpopulations. Before implementing housing-related screening initiatives, health systems should understand how specific measures surface distinct housing-related barriers. Measure selection should depend on program goals and intervention resources.

Patient Experiences with Screening and Assistance for Social Isolation in Primary Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation is a known predictor of mortality that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations in the USA. Although experts began to recognize it as a public health crisis prior to 2020, the novel coronavirus pandemic has accelerated recognition of social isolation as a serious threat to health and well-being. OBJECTIVE: Examine patient experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation in primary care settings, and whether patient experiences with these activities are associated with the severity of reported social isolation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N = 251) were recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. MAIN MEASURES: A modified version of the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI), endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; items to assess for prior experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation. KEY RESULTS: In the sample population, 12.4% reported the highest levels of social isolation (SNI = 0/1), compared to 36.7%, 34.7%, and 16.3% (SNI = 2-4, respectively). Most patients had not been asked about social isolation in a healthcare setting (87.3%), despite reporting no discomfort with social isolation screening (93.9%). Neither discomfort with nor participation in prior screening for social isolation was associated with social isolation levels. Desire for assistance with social isolation (3.2%) was associated with a higher level of social isolation (AOR = 6.0, 95% CI, 1.3-28.8), as well as poor or fair health status (AOR = 9.1; 95% CI, 1.3-64.1). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, few patients reported being screened previously for social isolation in a primary care setting, despite low levels of discomfort with screening. Providers should consider broadening social isolation screening and referral practices in healthcare settings, especially among sicker and more isolated patients who express higher levels of interest in assistance with social isolation.

Association of Financial Worry and Material Financial Risk with Short-Term Ambulatory Healthcare Utilization in a Sample of Subsidized Exchange Patients.

BACKGROUND: Financial burden can affect healthcare utilization. Few studies have assessed the short-term associations between material (debt, trouble paying rent) and psychological (worry or distress about affording future healthcare) financial risks, and subsequent outpatient and emergency healthcare use. Worry was defined as concerns about affording future healthcare. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether worry about affording healthcare is associated with healthcare utilization when controlling for material risk and general anxiety DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study PARTICIPANTS: Kaiser Permanente members with exchange-based federally subsidized health insurance (n = 450, 45% response rate) MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures of financial risks (material difficulty paying for medical care and worry about affording healthcare) and general anxiety. Healthcare use (primary care, urgent care, emergency department, and outpatient specialty visits) in the 6 months following survey completion. KEY RESULTS: Emergency department and primary care visits were not associated with material risk, worry about affording care, or general anxiety in individual and pooled analyses (all 95% confidence intervals (CI) for relative risk (RR) included 1). Although no individual predictor was associated with urgent care use (all 95% CIs for RR included 1), worry about affording prescriptions (relative risk (RR) = 2.01; 95% CI 1.14, 3.55) and general anxiety (RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.15, 0.95) were significant when included in the same model, suggesting the two confounded each other. Worry about affording healthcare services was associated with fewer specialty care visits (RR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.25, 0.64) even when controlling for material risk and general anxiety, although general anxiety was also associated with more specialty care visits (RR = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.23, 3.18). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for both general anxiety and financial worry may assist with specialty care utilization. Identifying these concerns may provide more opportunities to assist patients. Future research should examine interventions to reduce worry about cost of care.

Comparing the performance of two social risk screening tools in a vulnerable subpopulation.

BACKGROUND: Research shows the profound impact of social factors on health, lead many healths systems to incorporate social risk screening. To help healthcare systems select among various screening tools we compared two tools, the Your Current Life Situation (YCLS) and the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Screening tools, on key psychometric properties. METHOD: Kaiser Permanente Southern California subsidized exchange members (n = 1008) were randomly invited to complete a survey containing either the YCLS or the AHC tool, as well as other measures related to care experience and health. Healthcare use was measured through the electronic health record. Agreement between the AHC and YCLS was assessed using adjusted kappas for six domains (food - worry, food - pay, insecure housing, housing quality, transportation, utilities). To assess predictive validity, items on the AHC and YCLS were compared to self-rated health and receipt of a flu shot. RESULTS: Responders (n = 450) and non-responders (n = 558) significantly differed on sex, language, and depression (P < 0.05) but not anxiety, race/ethnicity, or healthcare use. Agreement between the AHC and YCLS tools was substantial on all items (kappas > 0.60) except for housing quality (kappa 0.52). Four out of six screening questions on the AHC tool and four out of seven on the YCLS tool were associated with self-rated health (P < 0.03). No social needs were associated with flu shot receipt except utilities on the AHC tool (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: In this sample, the AHC and YCLS tools are similar in their ability to screen for social risks. Differences observed likely stem from the timeframe and wording of the questions, which can be used to guide selection in healthcare systems.