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

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

Intensive Approaches to Prenatal Care May Reduce Risk of Gestational Diabetes.

Objectives: To observe gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevalence among participants receiving enhanced prenatal care through one of three care models: Birth Centers, Group Prenatal Care, and Maternity Care Homes. Materials and Methods: This study draws upon data collected from 2014 to 2017 as part of the Strong Start II evaluation and includes data from nearly 46,000 women enrolled across 27 awardees with more than 200 sites throughout the United States. Descriptive and statistical analyses utilized data from participant surveys completed upon entry to the program and a limited chart review. Results: A total of 6.3% of Strong Start participants developed GDM during their pregnancy. Rates varied significantly and substantially by model. After adjusting for participant risk factors, we find that Birth Center participants of all races and ethnicities experienced significantly lower rates of GDM than women of the same race/ethnicity in Maternity Care Homes. Conclusions: The lower rates of gestational diabetes among women receiving Birth Center prenatal care suggest the need for further investigation of how prenatal care approaches can reduce GDM and address health disparities.

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

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

Prenatal Depression: Assessment and Outcomes among Medicaid Participants.

This study used bivariate and regression-adjusted analyses of participant-level survey and medical data to investigate prevalence of depression among pregnant Medicaid participants, correlates of depression, and the relationship between depression and pregnancy outcomes. The sample included Medicaid participants with a single gestation and valid depression data who were enrolled in Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns 2, a national preterm birth prevention program, from 2013 to 2017 (N = 37,287; 85% of total enrollment). Depression rates in Strong Start were high (27.5%). Depression was associated with being black; having other children, an unplanned pregnancy, or challenges accessing prenatal care; not having a co-resident spouse or partner; and experiencing intimate partner violence. After these and other risk factors were controlled for, depression remained associated with higher rates of preterm birth. Systematic screening and holistic approaches to prenatal care that address depression and associated risks could help reduce rates of preterm birth and other poor pregnancy outcomes.

Preeclampsia Risk and Prevention among Pregnant Medicaid Beneficiaries.

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

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

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

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

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

Family Planning Confidential: A Qualitative Research Study on the Implications of the Affordable Care Act.

PURPOSE: A cornerstone of the Title X program is guaranteed access to confidential family planning services regardless of patients' ability to pay. This is particularly important for adolescents and young adults. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded health insurance access for thousands of individuals. But, billing third-party payers for family planning services can result in the generation of explanations of benefits and other communications to the policy holder that may compromise confidentiality for covered dependents. METHODS: The research team facilitated 12 focus groups with 62 Title X clients in 5 states and conducted interviews with 91 health center key informants in 10 states. Transcripts were coded using NVivo version 10.0. Researchers used deductive coding and grounded theory to search for themes. RESULTS: Clients expressed confusion about the difference between confidential services from their health center versus confidential communications from their health insurance plan. Health center staff also highlighted confidentiality issues that may arise from ACA insurance expansion and revealed that clients overall do not understand how health insurance works, particularly younger clients and those that were newly covered under the ACA. CONCLUSIONS: Many Title X supported health centers will continue not to bill insurance if there are concerns regarding confidentiality, especially with their adolescent and young adult clients. Despite additional revenue sources that have emerged since the passage of the ACA, Title X funding may remain critical for clients who need safe, affordable, and confidential care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Medicaid cost savings from maternity care based at a freestanding birth center.

OBJECTIVES: Medicaid pays for about half the births in the United States, at very high cost. Compared to usual obstetrical care, care by midwives at a birth center could reduce costs to the Medicaid program. This study draws on information from a previous study of the outcomes of birth center care to determine whether such care reduces Medicaid costs for low income women. METHODS: The study uses results from a study of maternal and infant outcomes at the Family Health and Birth Center in Washington, D.C. Costs to Medicaid are derived from birth center data and from other national sources of the cost of obstetrical care. RESULTS: We estimate that birth center care could save an average of $1,163 per birth (2008 constant dollars), or $11.6 million per 10,000 births per year. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid is the leading payer for maternity services. As Medicaid faces continuing cost increases and budget constraints, policy makers should consider a larger role for midwives and birth centers in maternity care for low-risk Medicaid pregnant women.

Midwifery care at a freestanding birth center: a safe and effective alternative to conventional maternity care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of a midwifery model of care delivered in a freestanding birth center on maternal and infant outcomes when compared with conventional care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Birth certificate data for women who gave birth in Washington D.C. and D.C. residents who gave birth in other jurisdictions. STUDY DESIGN: Using propensity score modeling and instrumental variable analysis, we compare maternal and infant outcomes among women who receive prenatal care from birth center midwives and women who receive usual care. We match on observable characteristics available on the birth certificate, and we use distance to the birth center as an instrument. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Birth certificate data from 2005 to 2008. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Women who receive birth center care are less likely to have a C-section, more likely to carry to term, and are more likely to deliver on a weekend, suggesting less intervention overall. While less consistent, findings also suggest improved infant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For women without medical complications who are able to be served in either setting, our findings suggest that midwife-directed prenatal and labor care results in equal or improved maternal and infant outcomes.