Abortion service delivery in clinics by state policy climate in 2017.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine service delivery in clinics that provided abortions in 2017, including differences by abortion policy climate. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2017 Abortion Provider Census, we examine amount charged for abortion care, pregnancy gestation at which abortions were offered, number of days per week that clinics provided abortions and types of nonabortion services offered. Our analysis focuses on the 808 clinic facilities that provided 95% of abortions that year. Measures were calculated nationally and according to whether the clinic was in a state we categorized as hostile, middle ground or supportive of abortion rights. RESULTS: In 2017, 64% of clinics offered abortion at 11 weeks pregnancy gestation, and 22% did so at 20 weeks gestation. Supportive states had a higher density of clinics that provide abortion for every measured gestation than hostile states. Clinics charged an average of $549 for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks and $551 for medication abortion. Some 46% of clinics in supportive states offered abortion care 5 or more days per week compared to 29% in hostile states. Most clinics offered standalone contraception and family planning (87%) and gynecological care (85%), but the proportion of clinics that provided these services was higher in supportive states (93% and 90%) than in hostile states (75% and 73%). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of abortion facilities provide a range of other health care services. Aspects of service delivery, such as number of days abortions are provided, may vary according to abortion policy climate. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Onerous policies in states hostile to abortion rights may inhibit some facilities from providing abortion more days per week, and if so, could further burden patients obtaining abortion care in these states.

Defining and measuring core processes and structures in integrated behavioral health in primary care: a cross-model framework.

A movement towards integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care continues to grow, among an accumulating evidence base for its effectiveness for improving care. However, healthcare organizations struggle to navigate where to target their limited resources for improving integration. We evaluated a cross-model framework of IBH core processes and structures. We used a mixed-methods approach for evaluation of the framework, which included (a) an evaluation survey of national experts and stakeholders, (b) crosswalks with common IBH measures, and (c) a real-world usability test. Five core IBH principles, mapping to 25 processes, and nine clinic structures were defined. Survey responses from 29 IBH domain and policy experts and stakeholders resulted in uniformly high ratings of importance and variable levels of feasibility for measurement, particularly with respect to electronic health record (EHR) systems. A real-world usability test resulted in good uptake and use of the framework across a state-wide effort. An IBH Cross-Model Framework of core principles, processes, and structures generated good acceptability and showed good real-world utility in a state-wide effort to improve IBH across disparate levels of integration in diverse primary care settings. Findings identify feasible areas of measurement, particularly with EHR systems. Next steps include testing the relationship between the individual framework components and patient outcomes to help guide clinics towards prioritizing efforts focused on improving integration.

Transgender abortion patients and the provision of transgender-specific care at non-hospital facilities that provide abortions.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of transgender and gender non-binary (TGNB) individuals who obtained abortions in the United States and the extent to which abortion facilities offer transgender-specific health services. STUDY DESIGN: We collected survey data from all known health care facilities that provided abortions in 2017. For the first time, the questionnaire included items about TGNB abortion patients and services. RESULTS: We estimate that 462 to 530 TGNB individuals obtained abortions in 2017 and that 23% of clinics provide transgender-specific care. CONCLUSION: Several hundred abortions were provided to TGNB individuals in 2017, primarily at facilities that did not provide transgender-specific health services. IMPLICATIONS: Findings from this study support efforts to implement and expand gender-inclusive and affirming care at health care facilities that provide abortion.

Increasing collaboration on substance use disorder research with primary care practices through the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) called for its national nodes to promote the translation of evidence-based interventions from substance use disorder (SUD) research into clinical practices. This collaborative demonstration project engaged CTN-affiliated practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in research that describes aspects of opioid prescribing in primary care. METHODS: Six PBRNs queried electronic health records from a convenience sample of 134 practices (84 participants) to identify the percent of adult patients with an office visit who were prescribed an opioid medication from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, and, of those, the percent also prescribed a sedative in that year. Seven PBRNs sent an e-mail survey to a convenience sample of 108 practices (58 participants) about their opioid management policies and procedures during the project year. RESULTS: Of 561,017 adult patients with a visit to one of the 84 clinics in the project year, 22.9% (PBRN range 3.1%-25.4%) were prescribed opioid medications, and 52.1% (PBRN range 8.5%-60.6%) of those were prescribed a sedative in the same year. Of the 58 practices returning a survey (45.3% response rate), 98.1% had formal written treatment agreements for chronic opioid therapy, 68.5% had written opioid prescribing policies, and 43.4% provided reports to providers with feedback on opioid management. Only 24.1% were providing buprenorphine for OUD. CONCLUSION: CTN-affiliated PBRNs demonstrated their ability to collaborate on a project related to opioid management; results highlight the important role for PBRNs in OUD treatment, research, and the need for interventions and additional policies addressing opioid prescribing in primary care practice.

Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice-based research network.

BACKGROUND: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices. METHODS: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016). RESULTS: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists. CONCLUSIONS: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD.

Qualitative Assessment of Washington State Medicaid Health Plan Readiness to Implement Systems-Based Approaches to Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs by Medicaid health plans could address colorectal cancer screening disparities. Our objective is to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program by Washington State Medicaid health plans. We conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership from 2 statewide and 3 national Medicaid plans. We organized the interview questions around the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We analyzed interview transcripts, guided by directed content analysis, and identified facilitators and barriers to Medicaid health plan implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs. Robust health plan (inner setting) quality improvement infrastructures were facilitators. Lack of statewide Medicaid policy incentives (external setting) to increase colorectal cancer screening were barriers to potential implementation. Efforts to address identified barriers through local and national policies and statewide data sharing efforts may support Medicaid health plan implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Imaging Testing in US Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are one of the most sophisticated types of diagnostic tools used in health care, yet there are concerns that imaging is overused. Currently, tests are typically evaluated and implemented based on their accuracy, and there is limited knowledge about the range of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) that imaging tests may lead to. This study explores patients' experiences and subsequent outcomes of imaging tests most notable to patients. METHODS: Adult patients from four primary care clinics who had an x-ray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound in the 12 months before recruitment participated in a single semistructured interview to recount their imaging experience. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four themes related to PCOs were identified from 45 interviews. Participants' mean age was 53 years (25-83 years), 30 had undergone a diagnostic imaging test, and 15 underwent imaging for screening or monitoring. Themes included knowledge gained from the imaging test, its contribution to their overall health care journey, physical experiences during the test procedure, and impacts of the testing process on emotions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified various imaging test outcomes that were important to them. Measurement and reporting these outcomes should be considered more often in diagnostic research. Tools for providers and patients to discuss and utilize these outcomes may help promote shared decision making around the use and impact of imaging tests.