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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Practice Capacity to Address Patients' Social Needs and Physician Satisfaction and Perceived Quality of Care.

Recent studies have explored clinician impacts of health care-based interventions that respond to patients' social and economic needs. These studies were limited by available clinician data. We used the Commonwealth International Health Policy Survey of 890 primary care physicians to examine associations between clinic capacity to respond to patients' social needs and physician satisfaction, stress, and perceived medical care quality. Results suggest that perceived capacity to address social needs is strongly associated with both clinician satisfaction and perceived medical care quality. Our findings add to a growing literature on the potential return on investment of clinical interventions to address social needs.

Interventions Addressing Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Based on the recognition that food insecurity (FI) is associated with poor health across the life course, many US health systems are actively exploring ways to help patients access food resources. This review synthesizes findings from studies examining the effects of health care-based interventions designed to reduce FI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 through September 2018 that described health care- based FI interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated and pooled when appropriate. Study quality was rated using Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and examined a range of FI interventions and outcomes. Based on study design and sample size, 74% were rated low or very low quality. Studies of referral-based interventions reported moderate increases in patient food program referrals (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; SMD = 1.42, 95% CI, 0.76-2.08) and resource use (pooled SMD = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61). Few studies evaluated health or utilization outcomes; these generally reported small but positive effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although a growing base of literature explores health care-based FI interventions, the low number and low quality of studies limit inferences about their effectiveness. More rigorous evaluation of FI interventions that includes health and utilization outcomes is needed to better understand roles for the health care sector in addressing FI.

Identifying Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review of the Evidence.

This systematic scoping review explores evidence on food insecurity (FI) screening measures, acceptability, and program implementation in health care settings. Validation studies on brief screening tools suggest that instruments exist that adequately measure the construct of FI. Patients and clinicians found FI screening acceptable in a range of clinical settings, though studies are not high quality and rarely reflect substantial patient diversity. Targeted interventions successfully increased screening rates and reduced screening barriers. More research is needed to understand implementation and effectiveness of FI screening in diverse populations to ensure that evolving practices in this area do not widen health inequities.

Adjusting Clinical Plans Based on Social Context.

BACKGROUND: Social risk data collection is expanding in community health centers (CHCs). We explored clinicians' practices of adjusting medical care based on their awareness of patients' social risk factors-that is, changes they make to care plans to mitigate the potential impacts of social risk factors on their patients' care and health outcomes-in a set of Texas CHCs. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods. Surveys/interviews explored clinician perspectives on adjusting medical care based on patient social risk factors. Survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and inductive coding. RESULTS: Across 4 CHCs, we conducted 15 clinician interviews and collected 97 surveys. Interviews and surveys overall indicated support for adjustment activities. Two main themes emerged: 1) clinicians reported making frequent adjustments to patient care plans based on their awareness of patients' social contexts, while simultaneously expressing concerns about adjustment; and 2) awareness of patients' social risk factors, and clinician time, training, and experience all influenced clinician adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians at participating CHCs described routinely adjusting patient care plans based on their patients' social contexts. These adjustments were being made without specific guidelines or training. Standardization of adjustments may facilitate the contextualization of patient care through shared decision making to improve outcomes.

Provision of digital devices and internet connectivity to improve synchronous telemedicine access in the U.S.: a systematic scoping review.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic increase in telemedicine use for direct patient care. Inequities in device/internet access can limit the extent to which patients can engage with telemedicine care and exacerbate health disparities. In this review, we examined existing literature on interventions designed to improve patient telemedicine access by providing digital devices including tablets, smartphones, and computers and/or internet connectivity. Methods: In this systematic scoping review, we searched four databases for peer-reviewed studies published 1/1/2000-10/19/2021 that described healthcare interventions that provided patients with devices and/or internet connectivity and reported outcomes related to telemedicine access and/or usage. Data extraction elements included: study population, setting, intervention design, details on device/connectivity provision, and outcomes evaluated. Results: Twelve articles reflecting seven unique interventions met inclusion criteria. Ten articles examined telemedicine utilization (83%) and reported improved patient show rates/utilization. Seven articles examined patient satisfaction with the interventions (58%) and reported positive experiences. Fewer articles examined health outcomes (17%; 2/12) though these also demonstrated positive results. Across included studies, study quality was low. There were no controlled trials, and the most rigorously designed studies (n = 4) involved pre/post-intervention assessments. Discussion: Findings from this review indicate that providing material technology supports to patients can facilitate telemedicine access, is acceptable to patients and clinicians, and can contribute to improved health outcomes. The low number and quality of existing studies limits the strength of this evidence. Future research should explore interventions that can increase equitable access to telemedicine services. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=183442, identifier, PROSPERO: CRD42020183442.

Lessons learned from a multi-site collaborative working toward a digital health use screening tool.

Digital health has the potential to expand health care and improve outcomes for patients-particularly for those with challenges to accessing in-person care. The acceleration of digital health (and particularly telemedicine) prompted by the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic facilitated continuity of care in some settings but left many health systems ill-prepared to address digital uptake among patients from underserved backgrounds, who already experience health disparities. As use of digital health grows and the digital divide threatens to widen, healthcare systems must develop approaches to evaluate patients' needs for digital health inclusion, and consequentially equip patients with the resources needed to access the benefits of digital health. However, this is particularly challenging given the absence of any standardized, validated multilingual screening instrument to assess patients' readiness for digital healthcare that is feasible to administer in already under-resourced health systems. This perspective is structured as follows: (1) the need for digital health exclusion risk screening, (2) our convening as a group of stakeholders, (3) our review of the known digital health screening tools and our assessment, (4) formative work with patients regarding their perceptions on language and concepts in the digital health screening tools, and (5) conclusion with recommendations for digital health advocates generated by this collaborative of digital health researchers and operations leaders. There is a need to develop a brief, effective tool to screen for digital health use that can be widely implemented in diverse populations. We include lessons learned from our experiences in developing and testing risk of digital health exclusion screening questions in our respective health systems (e.g., patient perception of questions and response options). Because we recognize that health systems across the country may be facing similar challenges and questions, this perspective aims to inform ongoing efforts in developing health system digital exclusion screening tools and advocate for their role in advancing digital health equity.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.