Health care utilization and receipt of preventive care for patients seen at federally funded health centers compared to other sites of primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To compare utilization and preventive care receipt among patients of federal Section 330 health centers (HCs) versus patients of other settings.Data sources
A nationally representative sample of adults from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2004-2008).Study design
HC patients were defined as those with ≥50 percent of outpatient visits at HCs in the first panel year. Outcomes included utilization and preventive care receipt from the second panel year. We used negative binomial and logistic regression models with propensity score adjustment for confounding differences between HC and non-HC patients.Principal findings
Compared to non-HC patients, HC patients had fewer office visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.63) and hospitalizations (aIRR, 0.43) (both p < .001). HC patients were more likely to receive breast cancer screening than non-HC patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, p < .01). In subgroup analyses, uninsured HC patients had fewer outpatient and emergency room visits and were more likely to receive dietary advice and breast cancer screening compared to non-HC patients.Conclusions
Health centers add value to the health care system by providing socially and medically disadvantaged patients with care that results in lower utilization and maintained or improved preventive care.
SUBMITTER: Laiteerapong N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4177342 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:INTRODUCTION:During the 2018-2019 influenza season, vaccination coverage among U.S. children was 62.6%. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of influenza vaccinations among pediatric patients seen in U.S. health centers, and to explore potential disparities in vaccination coverage among subpopulations. Funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, these health centers provide primary and preventive care to underserved and vulnerable individuals and families in order to reduce health disparities based on economic, geographic, or cultural barriers. METHODS:Cross-sectional data, analyzed in 2019, came from the most recent waves of the Health Center Patient Survey (2009, 2014). The sample consisted of children ages 2-17 years receiving care from HRSA-funded health centers. The outcome of interest was self- or parent-reported receipt of influenza vaccine in the past year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted prevalence rate ratios for the association between demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty level, urban/rural residence, geographic region), health-related variables (receipt of well-child check-up, asthma diagnosis), and influenza vaccination. RESULTS:Influenza vaccination coverage among pediatric health center patients increased from 46.6% in 2009 to 67.8% in 2014. In the adjusted model for 2014, there were few statistically significant differences in vaccination coverage among subpopulation groups, however American Indian/Alaska Native children had 31% increased vaccination coverage compared with non-Hispanic White children (aPRR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60) and children living in the South had 26% decreased vaccination coverage compared with those living in the Northeast (aPRR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93). CONCLUSIONS:Influenza vaccination coverage among pediatric health center patients in 2014 exceeded the national average (as of 2018-2019), and few differences were found among at-risk subpopulations. HRSA-funded health centers are well-positioned to further increase the vaccination rate among children living in underserved communities.
| S-EPMC7378489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare total annual costs for Medicare beneficiaries receiving primary care in federally funded health centers (HCs) to Medicare beneficiaries in physician offices and outpatient clinics.Part A and B fee-for-service Medicare claims from 14 geographically diverse states. The sample was restricted to beneficiaries residing within primary care service areas (PCSAs) with at least one HC.We modeled separately total annual costs, annual primary care costs, and annual nonprimary care costs as a function of patient characteristics and PCSA fixed effects.Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.Total median annual costs (at $2,370) for HC Medicare patients were lower by 10 percent compared to patients in physician offices ($2,667) and by 30 percent compared to patients in outpatient clinics ($3,580). This was due to lower nonprimary care costs in HCs, despite higher primary care costs.HCs may offer lower total cost practice style to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare. Future research should examine whether these lower costs reflect better management by HC practitioners or more limited access to specialty care by HC patients.
| S-EPMC4799905 | biostudies-other
Project description:To make them more responsive to their community's needs, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are required to have a governing board comprising at least 51 percent consumers. However, the extent to which consumer board members actually resemble the typical FQHC patient has not been assessed, which according to the political science literature on representation may influence the board's ability to represent the community. This mixed-methods study uses four years of data from the Health Resources and Services Administration, combined with Uniform Data System, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Area Resource File data, to describe and identify factors associated with the composition of FQHC governing boards. Board members are classified into one of three groups: nonconsumers, nonrepresentative consumers (who do not resemble the typical FQHC patient), and representative consumers (who resemble the typical FQHC patient). The analysis finds that a minority of board members are representative consumers, and telephone interviews with a stratified random sample of thirty FQHC board members confirmed the existence of significant socioeconomic gaps between consumer board members and FQHC patients. This may make FQHCs less responsive to the needs of the predominantly low-income communities they serve.
| S-EPMC5602556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe study objective was to examine the association between mental health staffing at health centers funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and patients' receipt of mental health treatment.MethodsData were from the 2014 HRSA-funded Health Center Patient Survey and the 2013 Uniform Data System. Colocation of any mental health staff, including psychiatrists, psychologists, and other licensed staff, was examined. The outcomes of interest were whether a patient received any mental treatment and received any such treatment on site (at the health center). Analyses were conducted with multilevel generalized structural equation logistic regression models for 4,575 patients ages 18-64.ResultsPatients attending health centers with at least one mental health full-time equivalent (FTE) per 2,000 patients had a higher predicted probability of receiving mental health treatment (32%) compared with those attending centers with fewer than one such FTE (24%) or no such staffing (22%). Among patients who received this treatment, those at health centers with no staffing had a significantly lower predicted probability of receiving such treatment on site (28%), compared with patients at health centers with fewer than one such FTE (49%) and with at least one such FTE (65%). The predicted probability of receiving such treatment on site was significantly higher if there was a colocated psychiatrist versus no psychiatrist (58% versus 40%).ConclusionsColocating mental health staff at health centers increases the probability of patients' access to such treatment on site as well as from off-site providers.
| S-EPMC8410613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate indicators of diabetes quality of care for US nonelderly, adult Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes and compare federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) versus non-FQHCs.Research design and methodsWe analyzed diabetes process measures and acute health services utilization with 2012 US fee-for-service and managed care Medicaid claims in all 50 states and DC. We compared FQHC (N=121,977) to non-FQHC patients (N=700,401) using propensity scores to balance covariates and generalized estimating equation models.ResultsOverall, laboratory-based process measures occurred more frequently (range, 65.7%-76.6%) than measures requiring specialty referrals (retinal examinations, 33.3%; diabetes education, 3.4%). Compared with non-FQHC patients, FQHC patients had about 3 percentage point lower rates of each process measure, except for higher rates of diabetes education [relative risk=1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.16]. FQHC patients had fewer overall [incident rate ratio (IRR)=0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.88] and diabetes-related hospitalizations (IRR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.81), but more overall (IRR=1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.07) and diabetes-related emergency department visits (IRR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.13).ConclusionsThis national analysis identified opportunities to improve diabetes management among Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes, especially for retinal examinations or diabetes education. Overall, we found slightly lower rates of most diabetes care process measures for FQHC patients versus non-FQHC patients. Despite having higher rates of emergency department visits, FQHC patients were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than non-FQHC patients. These findings emphasize the need to identify innovative, effective approaches to improve diabetes care for Medicaid enrollees, especially in FQHC settings.
| S-EPMC9588553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare health care use and spending of Medicaid enrollees seen at federally qualified health centers versus non-health center settings in a context of significant growth.Using fee-for-service Medicaid claims from 13 states in 2009, we compared patients receiving the majority of their primary care in federally qualified health centers with propensity score-matched comparison groups receiving primary care in other settings.We found that health center patients had lower use and spending than did non-health center patients across all services, with 22% fewer visits and 33% lower spending on specialty care and 25% fewer admissions and 27% lower spending on inpatient care. Total spending was 24% lower for health center patients.Our analysis of 2009 Medicaid claims, which includes the largest sample of states and more recent data than do previous multistate claims studies, demonstrates that the health center program has provided a cost-efficient setting for primary care for Medicaid enrollees.
| S-EPMC5055764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We defined FQHC service areas based on patient use and examined the characteristics of areas that gained FQHC access post-ACA.MethodsWe defined FQHC service areas using total patient counts by ZIP code from the Uniform Data System (UDS) and compared this approach with existing methods. We then compared the characteristics of ZIP codes included in Medically Underserved Areas/Populations (MUA/Ps) that gained access vs. MUA/P ZIP codes that did not gain access to FQHCs between 2011-15.ResultsFQHC service areas based on UDS data vs. Primary Care Service Areas or counties included a higher percentage of each FQHC's patients (86% vs. 49% and 71%) and ZIP codes with greater use of FQHCs among low-income residents (29% vs. 22% and 22%), on average. MUA/Ps that gained FQHC access 2011-2015 included more poor, uninsured, publicly insured, and foreign-born residents than underserved areas that did not gain access, but were less likely to be rural (p < .05).ConclusionsMeasures of actual patient use provide a promising method of assessing FQHC service areas and access. Post-ACA funding, the FQHC program expanded access into areas that were more likely to have higher rates of poverty and uninsurance, which could help address disparities in access to care. Rural areas were less likely to gain access to FQHCs, underscoring the persistent challenges of providing care in these areas.
| S-EPMC8942056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of improving diabetes care with the Health Disparities Collaborative (HDC), a national collaborative quality improvement (QI) program conducted in community health centers (HCs).Data sources/study settingData regarding the impact of the Diabetes HDC program came from a serial cross-sectional follow-up study (1998, 2000, 2002) of the program in 17 Midwestern HCs. Data inputs for the simulation model of diabetes came from the latest clinical trials and epidemiological studies.Study designWe conducted a societal cost-effectiveness analysis, incorporating data from QI program evaluation into a Monte Carlo simulation model of diabetes.Data collection/extraction methodsData on diabetes care processes and risk factor levels were extracted from medical charts of randomly selected patients.Principal findingsFrom 1998 to 2002, multiple processes of care (e.g., glycosylated hemoglobin testing [HbA1C] [71-->92 percent] and ACE inhibitor prescribing [33-->55 percent]) and risk factor levels (e.g., 1998 mean HbA1C 8.53 percent, mean difference 0.45 percent [95 percent confidence intervals -0.72, -0.17]) improved significantly. With these improvements, the HDC was estimated to reduce the lifetime incidence of blindness (17-->15 percent), end-stage renal disease (18-->15 percent), and coronary artery disease (28-->24 percent). The average improvement in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.35 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $33,386/QALY.ConclusionsDuring the first 4 years of the HDC, multiple improvements in diabetes care were observed. If these improvements are maintained or enhanced over the lifetime of patients, the HDC program will be cost-effective for society based on traditionally accepted thresholds.
| S-EPMC2151395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) receive federal funding to serve medically underserved areas and provide a range of services including comprehensive primary care, enabling services, and behavioral health care. Greater funding for FQHCs could increase the local availability of clinic-based care and help reduce more costly resource use, such as emergency department visits (ED).ObjectiveTo examine the impact of funding increases for FQHCs after the ACA on the use of FQHCs and EDs.MethodsRetrospective study using the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database (APCD) 2010-2013 that included APCD enrollees in 559 Massachusetts ZIP codes (N = 6,173,563 in 2010). We calculated shift-share predictions of changes in FQHC funding at the ZIP code-level for FQHCs that received Community Health Center funds in any year, 2010-13 (N = 31). Outcomes were the number of ZIP code enrollees with visits to FQHCs and EDs, overall and for emergent and non-emergent diagnoses.ResultsIn 2010, 4% of study subjects visited a FQHC, and they were more likely to be younger, have Medicaid, and live in low-income areas. We found that a standard deviation increase in prior year FQHC funding (+31 percentage point (pp)) at the ZIP code level was associated with a 2.3pp (95% CI 0.7pp to 3.8pp) increase in enrollees with FQHC visits and a 1.3pp (95% CI -2.3pp to -0.3pp) decrease in enrollees with non-emergent ED visits, but no significant change in emergent ED visits (0.3pp, 95% CI -0.8pp to 1.4pp).ConclusionsWe found that areas exposed to greater FQHC funding increases had more growth in the number of enrollees seen by FQHCs and greater reductions in ED visits for non-emergent conditions. Investment in FQHCs could be a promising approach to increase access to care for underserved populations and reduce costly ED visits, especially for primary care treatable or non-emergent conditions.
| S-EPMC7714363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Latinos are the largest minority group in the United States and experience persistent disparities in access to and quality of health care. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the relationship between nativity/immigration status and self-reported quality of care and preventive care. (2) To assess the impact of a usual source of health care on receipt of preventive care among Latinos. DESIGN: Using cross-sectional data from the 2007 Pew Hispanic Center/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Hispanic Healthcare Survey, a nationally representative telephone survey of 4,013 Latino adults, we compared US-born Latinos with foreign-born Latino citizens, foreign-born Latino permanent residents and undocumented Latinos. We estimated odds ratios using separate multivariate ordered logistic models for five outcomes: blood pressure checked in the past 2 years, cholesterol checked in the past 5 years, perceived quality of medical care in the past year, perceived receipt of no health/health-care information from a doctor in the past year, and language concordance. RESULTS: Undocumented Latinos had the lowest percentages of insurance coverage (37% vs 77% US-born, P < 0.001), usual source of care (58% vs 79% US-born, P < 0.001), blood pressure checked (67% vs 87% US-born, P < 0.001), cholesterol checked (56% vs 83% US-born, P < 0.001), and reported excellent/good care in the past year (76% vs 80% US-born, P < 0.05). Undocumented Latinos also reported the highest percentage receiving no health/health-care information from their doctor (40% vs 20% US-born, P < 0.001) in the past year. Adjusted results showed that undocumented status was associated with lower likelihood of blood pressure checked in the previous 2 years (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84), cholesterol checked in the past 5 years (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.99), and perceived receipt of excellent/good care in the past year (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77). Having a usual source of care increased the likelihood of a blood pressure check in the past 2 years and a cholesterol check in the past 5 years. CONCLUSION: In this national sample, undocumented Latinos were less likely to report receiving blood pressure and cholesterol level checks, less likely to report having received excellent/good quality of care, and more likely to receive no health/health-care information from doctors, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Our study shows that differences in nativity/immigration status should be taken into consideration when we discuss perceived quality of care among Latinos.
| S-EPMC2764043 | biostudies-other