Personality Disorder Diagnosis Among Justice-Involved Veterans: An Investigation of VA Using Veterans.

ABSTRACT: Justice-involved veterans are more likely to experience myriad mental health sequelae. Nonetheless, examination of personality psychopathology among justice-involved veterans remains limited, with studies focused on males within correctional settings. We examined Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic medical records for 1,534,108 (12.28% justice-involved) male and 127,230 (8.79% justice-involved) female veterans. Male and female veterans accessing VA justice-related services were both approximately three times more likely to have a personality disorder diagnosis relative to those with no history of using justice-related services. This effect persisted after accounting for VA use (both overall and mental health), age, race, and ethnicity. Augmenting and tailoring VA justice-related services to facilitate access to evidence-based psychotherapy for personality psychopathology may promote optimal recovery and rehabilitation among these veterans.

County-level Predictors of Growth in Community-based Primary Care Use Among Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Choice Act expanded the Veterans Health Administration's (VA) capacity to purchase services for VA enrollees from community providers, yet little is known regarding the growth of Veterans' primary care use in community settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to measure county-level growth in VA community-based primary care (CBPC) penetration following the Choice Act and to assess whether CBPC penetration increased in rural counties with limited access to VA facilities. DATA AND SAMPLE: A total of 3132 counties from VA administrative data from 2015 to 2018, Area Health Resources Files, and County Health Rankings. ANALYSIS: We defined the county-level CBPC penetration rate as the proportion of VA-purchased primary care out of all VA-purchased primary care (ie, within and outside VA). We estimated county-level multivariate linear regression models to assess whether rurality and supply of primary care providers and health care facilities were significantly associated with CBPC growth. RESULTS: Nationally, CBPC penetration rates increased from 2.7% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2018. The rurality of the county was associated with a 2-3 percentage point (pp) increase in CBPC penetration growth (P<0.001). The presence of a VA facility was associated with a 1.7 pp decrease in CBPC penetration growth (P<0.001), while lower primary care provider supply was associated with a 0.6 pp increase in CBPC growth (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: CBPC as a proportion of all VA-purchased primary care was small but increased nearly 3-fold between 2015 and 2018. Greater increases in CBPC penetration were concentrated in rural counties and counties without a VA facility, suggesting that community care may enhance primary care access in rural areas with less VA presence.

Community Urgent Care Use Following Implementation of the Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act.

BACKGROUND: Effective June 6, 2019, Veterans Affairs (VA) began offering a new urgent care (UC) benefit that provides eligible Veterans with greater choice and access to care for the treatment of minor injuries and illnesses in their local communities. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe trends in UC use, identify predictors of UC benefit use, and understand the factors associated with community UC use versus VA emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) use. STUDY DESIGN: Using VA administrative data, this was a retrospective cross-sectional study of Veterans that were enrolled in VA in FY19. Veterans were classified into 3 groups: UC benefit users, benefit non-users, and VA ED/UCC users. METHODS: We used summary statistics to compare population characteristics across user groups. To determine whether predisposing, enabling, and need factors predicted UC benefit use and setting choice (community UCC vs. VA ED/UCC), 2 logistic regression models were fitted to assess odds of UC use. RESULTS: From June 6, 2019 through February 29, 2020, 138,305 Veterans made 175,821 community UC visits. The majority of visits were made by White males who were not subject to co-pays. The average cost to VA for UC visits was $132 (SD=$135). Upper respiratory infections were the most common reason for UC use. Being younger, female, and living farther from a VA ED/UCC was associated with greater UC benefit use compared with both benefit non-users and VA ED/UCC users. CONCLUSIONS: The new benefit expands Veteran access to UC services for low-acuity conditions.

Understanding VA's Use of and Relationships With Community Care Providers Under the MISSION Act.

BACKGROUND: Congress has enacted 2 major pieces of legislation to improve access to care for Veterans within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a result, the VA has undergone a major transformation in the way that care is delivered to Veterans with an increased reliance on community-based provider networks. No studies have examined the relationship between VA and contracted community providers. This study examines VA facility directors' perspectives on their successes and challenges building relationships with community providers within the VA Community Care Network (CCN). OBJECTIVES: To understand who VA facilities partner with for community care, highlight areas of greatest need for partnerships in various regions, and identify challenges of working with community providers in the new CCN contract. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a national survey with VA facility directors to explore needs, challenges, and expectations with the CCN. RESULTS: The most common care referred to community providers included physical therapy, chiropractic, orthopedic, ophthalmology, and acupuncture. Open-ended responses focused on 3 topics: (1) Challenges in working with community providers, (2) Strategies to maintain strong relationships with community providers, and (3) Re-engagement with community providers who no longer provide care for Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: VA faces challenges engaging with community providers given problems with timely reimbursement of community providers, low (Medicare) reimbursement rates, and confusing VA rules related to prior authorizations and bundled services. It will be critical to identify strategies to successfully initiate and sustain relationships with community providers.

Interorganizational Care Coordination of Rural Veterans by Veterans Affairs and Community Care Programs: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In the unique context of rural Veterans' health care needs, expansion of US Department of Veterans Affairs and Community Care programs under the MISSION Act, and the uncertainties of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is critical to understand what may support effective interorganizational care coordination for increased access to high-quality care. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review to examine the interorganizational care coordination initiatives that Veterans Affairs (VA) and community partners have pursued in caring for rural Veterans, including challenges and opportunities, organizational domains shaping care coordination, and among these, initiatives that improve or impede health care outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2009 and May 2020. Building on prior research, we conducted a systematic review. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met our criteria. Each captured a unique health care focus while examining common challenges. Four organizational domains emerged: policy and administration, culture, mechanisms, and relational practices. Exemplars highlight how initiatives improve or impede rural health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review, to our knowledge, examining interorganizational care coordination of rural Veterans by VA and Community Care programs. Results provide exemplars of interorganizational care coordination domains and program effectiveness. It suggests that partners' efforts to align their coordination domains can improve health care, with rurality serving as a critical contextual factor. Findings are important for policies, practices, and research of VA and Community Care partners committed to improving access and health care for rural Veterans.

Review of purchases of unapproved medications by the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: Many medications that were marketed prior to 1962 but lack Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval are prescribed in the United States. Usage patterns of these "unapproved medications" are poorly elucidated, which is concerning due to potential lack of data on safety and efficacy. The purpose of this project was to characterize purchases of unapproved medications within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) by type, frequency, and cost. METHODS: VHA purchasing databases were used to create a list of all products with National Drug Codes (NDCs) purchased nationwide in fiscal year 2016 (FY16). This list was compared to FDA databases to identify unapproved prescription medications. For each identified combination of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and route of administration ("API/route combination"), numbers of packages purchased and associated costs were added. RESULTS: VHA pharmacy purchasing records contained 3,299 unapproved products with NDCs in FY16. After excluding equipment, nutrition products, compounding ingredients, nonmedication products, and duplicate NDCs, there were 600 unique NDCs associated with 130 distinct API/route combinations. The most commonly acquired product was prescription sodium fluoride dental paste (350,775 packages). The greatest pharmaceutical expenditure was for sodium hyaluronate injection ($24.5 million). Unapproved products accounted for less than 1% of overall VHA pharmacy purchasing in FY16. CONCLUSION: VHA purchased many unapproved prescription products in FY16 but is taking action to address use of such products in consideration of safety and efficacy data and available alternatives.

Experiences with the Veterans' Choice Program.

BACKGROUND: To address concerns about Veterans' access to care at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act was enacted to facilitate Veterans' access to care in non-VA settings, resulting in the "Veterans Choice Program" (VCP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the characteristics of Veterans who used or planned to use the VCP, reasons for using or planning to use the VCP, and experiences with the VCP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods. SUBJECTS: After sampling Veterans in the Midwest census region receiving care at VA healthcare facilities, we included 4521 Veterans in the analyses. Of these, 60 Veterans participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. APPROACH: Quantitative data were derived from VA's administrative and clinical data and a survey of Veterans including Veteran characteristics and self-reported use of VCP. Associations between Veterans' characteristics and use or planned use of the VCP were assessed using logistic regression analysis. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: Veterans with a higher odds of reporting use or intended use of the VCP were women, lived further distances from VA facilities, or had worse health status than other Veterans (P ≤ 0.01). Key themes included positive experiences with the VCP (timeliness of care, location of care, access to services, scheduling improvements, and coverage of services), and negative experiences with the VCP (complicated scheduling processes, inconveniently located appointments, delays securing appointments, billing confusion, and communication breakdowns). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that Veterans value access to care close to their home and care that addresses the needs of women and Veterans with poor health status. The Mission Act was passed in June 2018 to restructure the VCP and consolidate community care into a single program, continuing VA's commitment to support access to community care into the future.

Veteran Satisfaction with Early Experiences of Health Care Through the Veterans Choice Program: a Concurrent Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (i.e., "Choice") allows eligible Veterans to receive covered health care outside the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System. The initial implementation of Choice was challenging, and use was limited in the first year. OBJECTIVE: To assess satisfaction with Choice, and identify reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction during its early implementation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured telephone interviews from July to September 2015 with Choice-eligible Veterans from 25 VA facilities across the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Satisfaction was assessed with 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions. We compared ratings of satisfaction with Choice and VA health care, and identified reasons for satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Choice in a thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative data. RESULTS: Of 195 participants, 35 had not attempted to use Choice; 43 attempted but had not received Choice care (i.e., attempted only); and 117 attempted and received Choice care. Among those who attempted only, a smaller percentage were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice than with VA health care (17.9% and 71.8%, p < 0.001); among participants who received Choice, similar percentages were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice and VA health care (66.6% and 71.1%, p = 0.45). When asked what contributed to Choice ratings, participants who attempted but did not receive Choice care reported poor access (50%), scheduling problems (20%), and care coordination issues (10%); participants who received Choice care reported improved access (27%), good quality of care (19%), and good distance to Choice provider (16%). Regardless of receipt of Choice care, most participants expressed interest in using Choice in the future (70-82%). CONCLUSIONS: Access and scheduling barriers contributed to dissatisfaction for Veterans unsuccessfully attempting to use Choice during its initial implementation, whereas improved access and good care contributed to satisfaction for those receiving Choice care. With Veterans' continued interest in using services outside VA facilities, subsequent policy changes should address Veterans' barriers to care.

Infertility Services for Veterans: Policies, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Infertility prevalence and care needs among male and female Veterans are understudied topics. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical benefits package covers full infertility evaluation and many infertility treatments for Veterans but not, by law, for their spouses. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is also specifically excluded from this medical benefits package by regulation. Congress passed a law in 2016 that allowed VHA to provide IVF to Veterans and their legal spouses, and broader infertility benefits to the legal spouse, if the Veteran has a service-connected condition associated with his or her infertility, with some limitations. As the Veteran population becomes increasingly female, research efforts in reproductive health, including infertility, are expanding and evolving. This includes a nationwide study currently underway examining infertility among male and female Veterans and associations with military-related trauma, such as injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, military sexual trauma, and toxin exposure. In this review, we describe the state of the science and policy on infertility care in the VHA along with challenges and opportunities that exist within the VHA system.

Recommendations for the Evaluation of Cross-System Care Coordination from the VA State-of-the-art Working Group on VA/Non-VA Care.

In response to widespread concerns regarding Veterans' access to VA care, Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which required VA to establish the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). Since the inception of VCP, more than two million Veterans have received care from community providers, representing approximately 25% of Veterans enrolled in VA care. However, expanded access to non-VA care has created challenges in care coordination between VA and community health systems. In March 2018, the VA Health Services Research & Development Service hosted a VA State of the Art conference (SOTA) focused on care coordination. The SOTA convened VA researchers, program directors, clinicians, and policy makers to identify knowledge gaps regarding care coordination within the VA and between VA and community systems of care. This article provides a summary and synthesis of relevant literature and provides recommendations generated from the SOTA about how to evaluate cross-system care coordination. Care coordination is typically evaluated using health outcomes including hospital readmissions and death; however, in cross-system evaluations of care coordination, measures such as access, cost, Veteran/patient and provider satisfaction (including with cross-system communication), comparable quality metrics, context (urban vs. rural), and patient complexity (medical and mental health conditions) need to be included to fully evaluate care coordination effectiveness. Future research should examine the role of multiple individuals coordinating VA and non-VA care, and how these coordinators work together to optimize coordination.

Operationalizing an Implementation Framework to Disseminate a Care Coordination Program for Rural Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding how to successfully implement care coordination programs across diverse settings is critical for disseminating best practices. We describe how we operationalized the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to guide the assessment of local context prior to implementation of the rural Transitions Nurse Program (TNP) at five facilities across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: We operationalized PRISM to create qualitative data collection techniques (interview guides, semi-structured observations, and a group brainwriting premortem) to assess local context, the current state of care coordination, and perceptions of TNP prior to implementation at five facilities. We analyzed data using deductive-inductive framework analysis to identify themes related to PRISM. We adapted implementation strategies at each site using these findings. RESULTS: We identified actionable themes within PRISM domains to address during implementation. The most commonly occurring PRISM domains were "organizational characteristics" and "implementation and sustainability infrastructure." Themes included a disconnect between primary care and hospital inpatient teams, concerns about work duplication, and concerns that one nurse could not meet the demand for the program. These themes informed TNP implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PRISM for pre-implementation site assessments yielded important findings that guided adaptations to our implementation approach. Further, barriers and facilitators to TNP implementation may be common to other care coordination interventions. Generating a common language of barriers and facilitators in care coordination initiatives will enhance generalizability and establish best practices. IMPACT STATEMENTS: TNP is a national intensive care coordination program targeting rural Veterans. We operationalized PRISM to guide implementation efforts. We effectively elucidated facilitators, barriers, and unique contextual factors at diverse VHA facilities. The use of PRISM enhances the generalizability of findings across care settings and may optimize implementation of care coordination interventions in the VHA.

Consideration of substance use in compensation and pension examinations of veterans filing PTSD claims.

Veterans filing claims that service-induced PTSD impairs them worry that claims examiners may attribute their difficulties to conditions other than PTSD, such as substance use. Substance use commonly co-occurs with PTSD and complicates establishing a PTSD diagnosis because symptoms may be explained by PTSD alone, PTSD-induced substance use, or by a substance use condition independent of PTSD. These alternative explanations of symptoms lead to different conclusions about whether a PTSD diagnosis can be made. How substance use impacts an examiner's diagnosis of PTSD in a Veteran's service-connection claim has not been previously studied. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that mention of risky substance use in the Compensation & Pension (C&P) examination would result in a lower likelihood of service-connection award, presumably because substance use reflected an alternative explanation for symptoms. Data were analyzed from 208 Veterans' C&P examinations, medical records, and confidentially-collected research assessments. In this sample, 165/208 (79%) Veterans' claims were approved for a mental health condition; 70/83 (84%) with risky substance use mentioned and 95/125 (76%) without risky use mentioned (p = .02). Contrary to the a priori hypothesis, Veterans with risky substance use were more likely to get a service-connection award, even after controlling for baseline PTSD severity and other potential confounds. They had almost twice the odds of receiving any mental health award and 2.4 times greater odds of receiving an award for PTSD specifically. These data contradict assertions of bias against Veterans with risky substance use when their claims are reviewed. The data are more consistent with substance use often being judged as a symptom of PTSD. The more liberal granting of awards is consistent with literature concerning comorbid PTSD and substance use, and with claims procedures that make it more likely that substance use will be attributed to trauma exposure than to other causes.

Expanded Access to Non-VA Care Through the Veterans Choice Program. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as final, with no change, an interim final rule revising its medical regulations that implement section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, as amended, (hereafter referred to as "the Choice Act), which requires VA to establish a program (hereafter referred to as the Veterans Choice Program" or the "Program") to furnish hospital care and medical services through eligible non- VA health care providers to eligible veterans who either cannot be seen within the wait-time goals of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) or who qualify based on their place of residence or face an unusual or excessive burden in traveling to a VA medical facility. Those revisions contained in the interim final rule, which is now adopted as final, were required by amendments to the Choice Act made by the Construction Authorization and Choice Improvement Act of 2014, and by the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015. VA published an interim final rule on December 1, 2015, implementing those regulatory revisions, and we received seven public comments. This final rule responds to those public comments and does not make any further regulatory revisions.