Addressing Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Early Lessons from Accountable Health Communities.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently adopted quality metrics that require hospitals to screen for health-related social risks. The hope is that these requirements will encourage health care organizations to refer patients with social needs to community resources and, as possible, offer navigation services. This approach-screening, referrals, and navigation-is based, in part, on the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) model. Twenty-two of 31 participants in the AHC model in 2019 were interviewed to generate guidance for health care organizations as they implement screening, referral, and navigation activities to improve patients' health-related social risks. From these interviews, the team identified 4 key program design elements that facilitated AHC implementation: (1) centralized management office, (2) accountability milestones, (3) prescriptive requirements, and (4) technology support. The structure and requirements of the AHC model spurred participating organizations to rapidly implement social care activities, but the model did not allow for the flexibility necessary to ensure sustained adoption of AHC activities. The AHC model required a designated centralized management office, which was instrumental in ensuring AHC activities were implemented effectively. The centralized management office was typically external from participating clinical sites that impacted the AHC model's integration within clinical workflows. The reliance on the centralized management office to implement AHC activities limited the sustainability of the model. As payers, policymakers, and delivery system leaders aim to develop sustainable and effective social care programs, insights from these interviews can help guide and shape policy and program design elements.

"Because There's Experts That Do That": Lessons Learned by Health Care Organizations When Partnering with Community Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations' partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs) are increasingly viewed as key to improving patients' social needs (e.g., food, housing, and economic insecurity). Despite this reliance on CBOs, little research explores the relationships that health care organizations develop with CBOs. OBJECTIVE: Understand how health care organizations interact with CBOs to implement social care. DESIGN: Thirty-three semi-structured telephone interviews collected April-July 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Administrators at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programming related to improving patients' social needs. Organizations ranged from multi-state systems to single-site practices and differed in structure, size, ownership, and geography. MEASURES: Structure and goals of health care organizations' relationship with CBOs. RESULTS: Most health care organizations (26 out of 29) relied on CBOs to improve their patients' social needs. Health care organization's goals for social care activities drove their relationships with CBOs. First, one-way referrals to CBOs did not require formal relationships or frequent interactions with CBOs. Second, when health care organizations contracted with CBOs to deliver discrete services, leadership-level relationships were required to launch programs while staff-to-staff interactions were used to maintain programs. Third, some health care organizations engaged in community-level activities with multiple CBOs which required more expansive, ongoing leadership-level partnerships. Administrators highlighted 4 recommendations for collaborating with CBOs: (1) engage early; (2) establish shared purpose for the collaboration; (3) determine who is best suited to lead activities; and (4) avoid making assumptions about partner organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Health care organizations tailored the intensity of their relationships with CBOs based on their goals. Administrators viewed informal relationships with limited interactions between organizations sufficient for many activities. Our study offers key insights into how and when health care organizations may want to develop partnerships with CBOs.

Essential not Supplemental: Medicare Advantage Members' Use of Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT).

BACKGROUND: Over five million people in the USA miss or delay medical care because of a lack of transportation. Transportation barriers are especially relevant to Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan enrollees, who are more likely to live with multiple chronic conditions and experience mobility challenges. Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) helps to address transportation gaps by providing rides to and from routine medical care (for example, medical appointments, laboratory tests, and pharmacy visits) and has been added as a supplemental benefit to some MA health plans. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize MA enrollees' experiences with supplemental NEMT benefits. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews focused on participants' experiences with existing NEMT benefits, transportation, and mobility. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one MA enrollees who used their MA NEMT benefit in 2019 and who remained eligible for ongoing transportation benefits through 2021. APPROACH: Using purposive sampling from a list of eligible participants, we recruited individuals who used their MA NEMT benefit in 2019 and who remained eligible for benefit-covered transportation services through 2021. KEY RESULTS: Participants considered NEMT an essential service, particularly because these services helped them decrease social isolation, reduce financial insecurity, and manage their own medical needs. Navigating logistical challenges associated with arranging NEMT services required participants to commit considerable time and energy and limited the effectiveness and reliability of NEMT. CONCLUSION: Participants described NEMT as a valued service essential to their ability to access health care. They suggested ways to increase service flexibility and reliability that could inform future NEMT policy and practice. As health systems and payers learn how to best address social risks, particularly as the US population ages, our findings underscore the importance of NEMT services and highlight opportunities to advance comprehensive transportation solutions for MA participants.

Racial-Ethnic Composition of Primary Care Practices and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative Participation.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the racial-ethnic composition or the socioeconomic profiles of eligible primary care practices better explain practice participation in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether practices serving high proportions of Black or Latino Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021 compared to practices serving lower proportions of these populations. DESIGN: 2019 IQVIA OneKey data on practice characteristics was linked with 2018 CMS claims data and 2021 CMS CPC+ participation data. Medicare FFS beneficiaries were attributed to practices using CMS's primary care attribution method. PARTICIPANTS: 11,718 primary care practices and 7,264,812 attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries across 18 eligible regions. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models examined whether eligible practices with relatively high shares of Black or Latino Medicare FFS beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021, controlling for the clinical and socioeconomic profiles of practices. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to each practice that are (1) Latino and (2) Black. KEY RESULTS: Of the eligible practices, 26.9% were CPC+ participants. In adjusted analyses, practices with relatively high shares of Black (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 0.62, p < 0.05) and Latino (aOR = 0.32, p < 0.01) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ compared to practices with lower shares of these beneficiary groups. State differences in CPC+ participation rates partially explained participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Black beneficiaries, but did not explain participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Latino beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: The racial-ethnic composition of eligible primary care practices is more strongly associated with CPC+ participation than census tract-level poverty. Practice eligibility requirements for CMS-sponsored initiatives should be reconsidered so that Black and Latino beneficiaries are not left out of the benefits of practice transformation.

"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.

"More than just giving them a piece of paper": Interviews with Primary Care on Social Needs Referrals to Community-Based Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices are responding to calls to incorporate patients' social risk factors, such as housing, food, and economic insecurity, into clinical care. Healthcare likely relies on the expertise and resources of community-based organizations to improve patients' social conditions, yet little is known about the referral process. OBJECTIVE: To characterize referrals to community-based organizations by primary care practices. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with healthcare administrators responsible for social care efforts in their organization. PARTICIPANTS: Administrators at 50 diverse US healthcare organizations with efforts to address patients' social risks. MAIN MEASURES: Approaches used in primary care to implement social needs referral to community-based organizations. RESULTS: Interviewed administrators reported that social needs referrals were an essential element in their social care activities. Administrators described the ideal referral programs as placing limited burden on care teams, providing patients with customized referrals, and facilitating closed-loop referrals. We identified three key challenges organizations experience when trying to implement the ideal referrals program: (1) developing and maintaining resources lists; (2) aligning referrals with patient needs; and (3) measuring the efficacy of referrals. Collectively, these challenges led to organizations relying on staff to manually develop and update resource lists and, in most cases, provide patients with generic referrals. Administrators not only hoped that referral platforms may help overcome some of these barriers, but also reported implementation challenges with platforms including inconsistent buy-in and use across staff; integration with electronic health records; management and prioritization of resources; and alignment with other organizations in their market. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Referrals to community-based organizations were used in primary care to improve patients' social conditions, but despite strong motivations, interviewees reported challenges providing tailored and up-to-date information to patients.

Configuration and Delivery of Primary Care in Rural and Urban Settings.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the capacity of rural primary care due to potential workforce shortages and patients with disproportionately more clinical and socioeconomic risks. Little research examines the configuration and delivery of primary care along the spectrum of rurality. OBJECTIVE: Compare structure, capabilities, and payment reform participation of isolated, small town, micropolitan, and metropolitan physician practices, and the characteristics and utilization of their Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Observational study of practices defined using IQVIA OneKey, 2017 Medicare claims, and, for a subset, the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate=47%). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 27,716,967 beneficiaries with qualifying visits who were assigned to practices. MAIN MEASURES: We characterized practices' structure, capabilities, and payment reform participation and measured beneficiary utilization by rurality. KEY RESULTS: Rural practices were smaller, more primary care dominant, and system-owned, and had more beneficiaries per practice. Beneficiaries in rural practices were more likely to be from high-poverty areas and disabled. There were few differences in patterns of outpatient utilization and practices' care delivery capabilities. Isolated and micropolitan practices reported less engagement in quality-focused payment programs than metropolitan practices. Beneficiaries cared for in more rural settings received fewer recommended mammograms and had higher overall and condition-specific readmissions. Fewer beneficiaries with diabetes in rural practices had an eye exam. Most isolated rural beneficiaries traveled to more urban communities for care. CONCLUSIONS: While most isolated Medicare beneficiaries traveled to more urban practices for outpatient care, those receiving care in rural practices had similar outpatient and inpatient utilization to urban counterparts except for readmissions and quality metrics that rely on services outside of primary care. Rural practices reported similar care capabilities to urban practices, suggesting that despite differences in workforce and demographics, rural patterns of primary care delivery are comparable to urban.

A Missed Opportunity? How Health Care Organizations Engage Primary Care Clinicians in Formal Social Care Efforts.

Health care organizations increasingly recognize the impact of social needs on health outcomes. As organizations develop and scale efforts to address social needs, little is known about the optimal role for clinicians in providing social care. In this study, the authors aimed to understand how health care organizations involve clinicians in formal social care efforts. In 2019, the authors conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with administrators at 29 health care organizations. Interviews focused on the development and implementation of formal social care programs within the health care organization and the role of clinicians within those programs. A few administrators described formal roles for primary care clinicians in organizational efforts to deliver social care. Administrators frequently described programs that were deliberately structured to shield clinicians (eg, clinicians were not expected to review social risk screening results or be involved in addressing social needs). The authors identified 4 ways that administrators felt clinicians could meaningfully engage in social care programs: (1) discuss social risks to strengthen relationships with patients; (2) adjust clinical care follow-up plans based on social risks; (3) modify prescriptions based on social risks; and (4) refer patients to other care team members who can directly assist with social risks. Administrators were hesitant to increase primary care clinicians' responsibilities by tasking them with social care activities. Defining appropriate and scalable roles for clinicians along with adequate support from other care team members may increase the effectiveness of social care programs.

"It's Not Just the Right Thing . . . It's a Survival Tactic": Disentangling Leaders' Motivations and Worries on Social Care.

Health care organizations face growing pressure to improve their patients' social conditions, such as housing, food, and economic insecurity. Little is known about the motivations and concerns of health care organizations when implementing activities aimed at improving patients' social conditions. We used semi-structured interviews with 29 health care organizations to explore their motivations and tensions around social care. Administrators described an interwoven set of motivations for delivering social care: (a) doing the right thing for their patients, (b) improving health outcomes, and (c) making the business case. Administrators expressed tensions around the optimal role for health care in social care including uncertainty around (a) who should be responsible, (b) whether health care has the needed capacity/skills, and (c) sustainability of social care activities. Health care administrators could use guidance and support from policy makers on how to effectively prioritize social care activities, partner with other sectors, and build the needed workforce.

Resource Brokering: Efforts to Assist Patients With Housing, Transportation, and Economic Needs in Primary Care Settings.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and policy makers are exploring the role of primary care in improving patients' social conditions, yet little research examines strategies used in clinical settings to assist patients with social needs. METHODS: Study used semistructured interviews with leaders and frontline staff at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programs used to address patients' social needs. Interviews focused on how organizations develop and implement case management-style programs to assist patients with social needs including staffing, assistance intensity, and use of referrals to community-based organizations (CBOs). RESULTS: Organizations used case management programs to assist patients with social needs through referrals to CBOs and regular follow-up with patients. About one-half incorporated care for social needs into established case management programs and the remaining described standalone programs developed specifically to address social needs independent of clinical needs. Referrals were the foundation for assistance and included preprinted resource lists, patient-tailored lists, and warm handoffs to the CBOs. While all organizations referred patients to CBOs, some also provided more intense services such as assistance completing patients' applications for services or conducting home visits. Organizations described 4 operational challenges in addressing patients' social needs: (1) effectively engaging CBOs; (2) obtaining buy-in from clinical staff; (3) considering patients' perspectives; and (4) ensuring program sustainability. CONCLUSION: As the US health care sector faces pressure to improve quality while managing costs, many health care organizations will likely develop or rely on case management approaches to address patients' social conditions. Health care organizations may require support to address the key operational challenges.Visual abstract.

The CMS State Innovation Models Initiative and Improved Health Information Technology and Care Management Capabilities of Physician Practices.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) State Innovation Models (SIMs) initiative funded 17 states to implement health care payment and delivery system reforms to improve health system performance. Whether SIM improved health information technology (HIT) and care management capabilities of physician practices, however, remains unclear. National surveys of physician practices (N = 2,722) from 2012 to 2013 and 2017 to 2018 were linked. Multivariable regression estimated differential adoption of 10 HIT functions and chronic care management processes (CMPs) based on SIM award status (SIM Round 1, SIM Round 2, or non-SIM). HIT and CMP capabilities improved equally for practices in SIM Round 1 (5.3 vs. 6.8 capabilities, p < .001), SIM Round 2 (4.7 vs. 7.0 capabilities, p < .001), and non-SIM (4.2 vs. 6.3 capabilities, p < .001) states. The CMS SIM Initiative did not accelerate the adoption of ten foundational physician practice capabilities beyond national trends.

Translating Evidence into Practice: ACOs' Use of Care Plans for Patients with Complex Health Needs.

BACKGROUND: Care plans are an evidence-based strategy, encouraged by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and are used to manage the care of patients with complex health needs that have been shown to lead to lower hospital costs and improved patient outcomes. Providers participating in payment reform, such as accountable care organizations, may be more likely to adopt care plans to manage complex patients. OBJECTIVE: To understand how Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) use care plans to manage patients with complex clinical needs. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Medicare ACOs. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine interviews were conducted across 18 Medicare ACOs with executive-level leaders and associated clinical and managerial staff. APPROACH: Development, structure, use, and management of care plans for complex patients at Medicare ACOs. KEY RESULTS: Most (11) of the interviewed ACOs reported using care plans to manage care of complex patients. All care plans include information about patient history, current medical needs, and future care plans. Beyond the core elements, care plans included elements based on the ACO's planned use and level of staff and patient engagement with care planning. Most care plans were developed and maintained by care management (not clinical) staff. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs are using care plans for patients with complex needs, but their use of care plans does not always meet the best practices. In many cases, ACO usage of care plans does not align with prescribed best practices: ACOs are adapting use of care plans to better fit the needs of patients and providers.

The Role of Value-Based Payment in Promoting Innovation to Address Social Risks: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Risk Screening by US Physicians.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity. CONTEXT: One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks. METHODS: We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening. FINDINGS: On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.

Role of Nurse Practitioners in Caring for Patients With Complex Health Needs.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate trends in the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners from 2012 to 2017, to characterize beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners in 2017, and to examine how the percentage of beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners varies by practice characteristics. DESIGN: An observational study of 2012-2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries' ambulatory visits. We computed the percentage of beneficiaries with 1 or more ambulatory visits from nurse practitioners and the percentage of beneficiaries receiving the plurality of their ambulatory visits from a nurse practitioner versus a physician (ie, predominant provider). We compared beneficiary demographics, clinical characteristics, and utilization by the predominant provider. We then characterized the predominant provider by practice characteristics. KEY RESULTS: In 2017, 28.9% of beneficiaries received any care from a nurse practitioner and 8.0% utilized nurse practitioners as their predominant provider-an increase from 4.4% in 2012. Among beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners in 2017, 25.9% had 3 or more chronic conditions compared with 20.8% of those cared for by physicians. Beneficiaries cared for in practices owned by health systems were more likely to have a nurse practitioner as their predominant provider compared with those attending practices that were independently owned (9.3% vs. 7.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioners are caring for Medicare beneficiaries with complex needs at rates that match or exceed their physician colleagues. The growing role of nurse practitioners, especially in health care systems, warrants attention as organizations embark on payment and delivery reform.

Financial Integration's Impact On Care Delivery And Payment Reforms: A Survey Of Hospitals And Physician Practices.

Health systems continue to grow in size. Financial integration-the ownership of hospitals or physician practices-often has anticompetitive effects that contribute to the higher prices for health care seen in the US. To determine whether the potential harms of financial integration are counterbalanced by improvements in quality, we surveyed nationally representative samples of hospitals (n = 739) and physician practices (n = 2,189), stratified according to whether they were independent or were owned by complex systems, simple systems, or medical groups. The surveys included nine scales measuring the level of adoption of diverse, quality-focused care delivery and payment reforms. Scores varied widely across hospitals and practices, but little of this variation was explained by ownership status. Quality scores favored financially integrated systems for four of nine hospital measures and one of nine practice measures, but in no case favored complex systems. Greater financial integration was generally not associated with better quality.

Association of Organizational Factors and Physician Practices' Participation in Alternative Payment Models.

Importance: Consolidation among physician practices and between hospitals and physician practices has accelerated in the past decade, resulting in higher prices in commercial markets. The resulting integration of health care across clinicians and participation in alternative payment models (APMs), which aim to improve quality while constraining spending, are cited as reasons for consolidation, but little is known about the association between integration and APM participation. Objective: To examine the association of organizational characteristics, ownership, and integration with intensity of participation in APMs among physician practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional descriptive study, adjusted for sampling and nonresponse weights, was conducted in US physician practice respondents to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems conducted between June 16, 2017, and August 17, 2018; of 2333 responses received (response rate, 46.9%) and after exclusion of ineligible and incomplete responses, the number of practices included in the analysis was 2061. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Exposures: Self-reported physician practice characteristics, including ownership, integration (clinical, cultural, financial, and functional), care delivery capabilities, activities, and environmental factors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in APMs: (1) bundled payments, (2) comprehensive primary care and medical home programs, (3) pay-for-performance programs, (4) capitated contracts with commercial health plans, and (5) accountable care organization contracts. Results: A total of 49.2% of the 2061 practices included reported participating in 3 or more APMs; most participated in pay-for-performance and accountable care organization models. Covariate-adjusted analyses suggested that operating within a health care system (odds ratio [OR] for medical group: 2.35; 95% CI, 1.70-3.25; P < .001; simple health system: 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.97; P = .02; and complex health system: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.25-2.47; P = .001 relative to independent practices), greater clinical (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.28-9.59; P < .001) and functional (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.00-8.97; P < .001) integration, and being located in the Northeast (OR for Midwest: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.65; P < .001; South: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P < .001; and West: 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = .01) were associated with greater APM participation. Conclusions and Relevance: Greater APM participation appears to be supported by integration and system ownership.

Prevalence of Screening for Food Insecurity, Housing Instability, Utility Needs, Transportation Needs, and Interpersonal Violence by US Physician Practices and Hospitals.

Importance: Social needs, including food, housing, utilities, transportation, and experience with interpersonal violence, are linked to health outcomes. Identifying patients with unmet social needs is a necessary first step to addressing these needs, yet little is known about the prevalence of screening. Objective: To characterize screening for social needs by physician practices and hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional survey analyses of responses by physician practices and hospitals to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems. Responses were collected from survey participants from June 16, 2017, to August 17, 2018. Exposures: Organizational characteristics, including participation in delivery and payment reform. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-report of screening patients for food insecurity, housing instability, utility needs, transportation needs, and experience with interpersonal violence. Results: Among 4976 physician practices, 2333 responded, a response rate of 46.9%. Among hospitals, 757 of 1628 (46.5%) responded. After eliminating responses because of ineligibility, 2190 physician practices and 739 hospitals remained. Screening for all 5 social needs was reported by 24.4% (95% CI, 20.0%-28.7%) of hospitals and 15.6% (95% CI, 13.4%-17.9%) of practices, whereas 33.3% (95% CI, 30.5%-36.2%) of practices and 8.0% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.0%) of hospitals reported no screening. Screening for interpersonal violence was most common (practices: 56.4%; 95% CI, 53.3%-2 59.4%; hospitals: 75.0%; 95% CI, 70.1%-79.3%), and screening for utility needs was least common (practices: 23.1%; 95% CI, 20.6%-26.0%; hospitals: 35.5%; 95% CI, 30.0%-41.0%) among both hospitals and practices. Among practices, federally qualified health centers (yes: 29.7%; 95% CI, 21.5%-37.8% vs no: 9.4%; 95% CI, 7.2%-11.6%; P < .001), bundled payment participants (yes: 21.4%; 95% CI, 17.1%-25.8% vs no: 10.7%; 95% CI, 7.9%-13.4%; P < .001), primary care improvement models (yes: 19.6%; 95% CI, 16.5%-22.6% vs no: 9.6%; 95% CI, 6.0%-13.1%; P < .001), and Medicaid accountable care organizations (yes: 21.8%; 95% CI, 17.4%-26.2% vs no: 11.2%; 95% CI, 8.6%-13.7%; P < .001) had higher rates of screening for all needs. Practices in Medicaid expansion states (yes: 17.7%; 95% CI, 14.8%-20.7% vs no: 11.4%; 95% CI, 8.1%-14.6%; P = .007) and those with more Medicaid revenue (highest tertile: 17.1%; 95% CI, 11.4%-22.7% vs lowest tertile: 9.0%; 95% CI, 6.1%-11.8%; P = .02) were more likely to screen. Academic medical centers were more likely than other hospitals to screen (49.5%; 95% CI, 34.6%-64.4% vs 23.0%; 95% CI, 18.5%-27.5%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that few US physician practices and hospitals screen patients for all 5 key social needs associated with health outcomes. Practices that serve disadvantaged patients report higher screening rates. The role of physicians and hospitals in meeting patients' social needs is likely to increase as more take on accountability for cost under payment reform. Physicians and hospitals may need additional resources to screen for or address patients' social needs.

How Do Accountable Care Organizations Deliver Preventive Care Services? A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act and the introduction of accountable care organizations (ACOs) have increased the incentives for patients and providers to engage in preventive care, for example, through quality metrics linked to disease prevention. However, little is known about how ACOs deliver preventive care services. OBJECTIVE: To understand how Medicare ACOs provide preventive care services to their attributed patients. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using survey data reporting Medicare ACO capabilities in patient care management and interviews with high-performing ACOs. PARTICIPANTS: ACO executives completed survey data on 283 Medicare ACOs. These data were supplemented with 39 interviews conducted across 18 Medicare ACOs with executive-level leaders and associated clinical and managerial staff. MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures included ACO performance, organizational characteristics, collaboration experience, and capabilities in care management and quality improvement. Telephone interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide and explored the mechanisms used, and motivations of, ACOs to deliver preventive care services. KEY RESULTS: Medicare ACOs that reported being comprehensively engaged in the planning and management of patient care - including conducting reminders for preventive care services - had more beneficiaries and had a history of collaboration experience, but were not more likely to receive shared savings or achieve high-quality scores compared to other surveyed ACOs. Interviews revealed that offering annual wellness visits and having a system-wide approach to closing preventive care gaps are key mechanisms used by high-performing ACOs to address patients' preventive care needs. Few programs or initiatives were identified that specifically target clinically complex patients. Aside from meeting patient needs, motivations for ACOs included increasing patient attribution and meeting performance targets. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs are increasingly motivated to deliver preventive care services. Understanding the mechanisms and motivations used by high-performing ACOs may help both providers and payers to increase the use of preventive care.