Health Care Use and Spending for Medicaid Enrollees in Federally Qualified Health Centers Versus Other Primary Care Settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nocon RS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5055764 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Health Care Use and Spending for Medicaid Enrollees in Federally Qualified Health Centers Versus Other Primary Care Settings.
Nocon Robert S RS Lee Sang Mee SM Sharma Ravi R Ngo-Metzger Quyen Q Mukamel Dana B DB Gao Yue Y White Laura M LM Shi Leiyu L Chin Marshall H MH Laiteerapong Neda N Huang Elbert S ES
American journal of public health 20160915 11
<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>We found that health ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThis nationwide study builds on prior research, which suggests that Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other primary care providers are associated with increased access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. We compare health care utilization, spending, and quality for Medicaid patients diagnosed with OUD who receive primary care at FQHCs and Medicaid patients who receive most primary care in other settings, such as physician offices (non-FQHCs). We hypothesized that the integrated care model of FQHCs would be associated with greater access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and/or behavioral health therapy and lower rates of potentially inappropriate co-prescribing.MethodsThis cross-sectional study examined 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract files for patients diagnosed with OUD receiving most (>50%) primary care at FQHCs (N = 37,142) versus non-FQHCs (N = 196,712) in all 50 states and Washington DC. We used propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for measurable confounding between patients who received care at FQHCs versus non-FQHCs and increase generalizability of findings given variation in Medicaid programs and substance use policies across states.ResultsFQHC patients displayed higher primary care utilization and fee-for-service spending, and similar or lower utilization and fee-for-service spending for other health service categories. Contrary to our hypotheses, non-FQHC patients were more likely to receive timely (≤90 days) MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone, or suboxone) (Relative Risk [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.12) and more likely be retained in medication treatment (>180 days) (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.14). However, non-FQHC patients were less likely to receive behavioral health therapy (mental health or substance use therapy) (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.92) and less likely to remain in behavioral health treatment (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.94). Non-FQHC patients were more likely to fill potentially inappropriate prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids after OUD diagnosis (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.40).ConclusionsObserved patterns suggest that Medicaid patients diagnosed with OUD who obtained primary care at FQHCs received more integrated care compared to non-FQHC patients. Greater care integration may be associated with increased access to behavioral health therapy and quality of care (lower potentially inappropriate co-prescribing) but not necessarily greater access to MOUD.
| S-EPMC9578596 | 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 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:ImportanceAdministrative records indicate that more than half of the 80 million Medicaid enrollees identify as belonging to a racial and ethnic minority group. Despite this, disparities within the Medicaid program remain understudied. For example, we know of no studies examining racial differences in Medicaid spending, a potential measure of how equitably state resources are allocated.ObjectivesTo examine whether and to what extent there are differences in health care spending and utilization between Black and White enrollees in Medicaid.Design setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study used calendar year 2016 administrative data from 3 state Medicaid programs and included 1 966 689 Black and White Medicaid enrollees. Analyses were performed between January 28, 2021, and October 18, 2021.ExposuresSelf-reported race.Main outcomes and measuresRates and racial differences in health care spending and utilization (including Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] access measures).ResultsOf 1 966 689 Medicaid adults and children (mean [SD] age, 20.3 [17.1] years; 1 119 136 [56.9%] female), 867 183 (44.1%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black and 1 099 506 (55.9%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White. Results were adjusted for age, sex, Medicaid eligibility category, zip code, health status, and usual source of care. On average, annual spending on Black adult (19 years or older) Medicaid enrollees was $317 (95% CI, $259-$375) lower than White enrollees, a 6% difference. Among children (18 years or younger), annual spending on Black enrollees was $256 (14%) lower (95% CI, $222-$290). Adult Black enrollees also had 19.3 (95% CI, 16.78-21.84), or 4%, fewer primary care encounters per 100 enrollees per year compared with White enrollees. Among children, the differences in primary care utilization were larger: Black enrollees had 90.1 (95% CI, 88.2-91.8) fewer primary care encounters per 100 enrollees per year compared with White enrollees, a 23% difference. Black enrollees had lower utilization of most other services, including high-value prescription drugs, but higher emergency department use and rates of HEDIS preventive screenings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of US Medicaid enrollees in 3 states, Black enrollees generated lower spending and used fewer services, including primary care and recommended care for acute and chronic conditions, but had substantially higher emergency department use. While Black enrollees had higher rates of HEDIS preventive screenings, ensuring equitable access to all services in Medicaid must remain a national priority.
| S-EPMC9187949 | 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:ImportanceState decisions to expand Medicaid eligibility were particularly consequential for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which serve 30 million low-income patients across the US. The longer-term association of Medicaid expansion with health outcomes at FQHCs is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the 5-year association of Medicaid expansion with uninsurance rates and hypertension and diabetes outcome measures by race and ethnicity in a nationally representative population of FQHCs.Design setting and participantsUsing a difference-in-differences analysis of a retrospective cohort from the universe of US FQHCs, changes in uninsurance rates and intermediate health outcomes for hypertension and diabetes by race and ethnicity were compared between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states before (2012-2013) vs after (2014-2018) expansion. Data were analyzed from September 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresLocation in a state that expanded Medicaid eligibility as of 2014.Main outcomes and measuresRates of uninsurance, the proportion of patients with hypertension with a blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, and the proportion of patients with diabetes with glycosylated hemoglobin levels of 9% or less, as stratified by race and ethnicity.ResultsOf the patients at 578 expansion-state FQHCs (serving 13.0 million patients per year) and 368 nonexpansion-state FQHCs (serving 6.0 million patients per year) in our study sample, 64.4% were age 18 to 64 years, 57.4% were women, 18.9% were non-Hispanic Black, and 27.3% were Hispanic. Following expansion, FQHCs in Medicaid expansion states experienced a 9.24 percentage point (PP) (95% CI, 7.94-10.54) decline in rates of uninsurance over the pooled 5-year expansion period compared with nonexpansion-state FQHCs. Across this 5-year period, expansion was associated with a 1.61-PP (95% CI, 0.58-2.64) comparative improvement in hypertension control and a 1.84-PP (95% CI, 0.71-2.98) comparative improvement in glucose control. Stratified results suggest that improvements were consistently observed in Black and Hispanic populations. The magnitude of change tended to increase with implementation time. For instance, by year 5, expansion was associated with a 3.38-PP (95% CI, 0.80-5.96) comparative improvement in hypertension control and a 3.88-PP (95% CI, 0.86-6.90) comparative improvement in glucose control among Black populations.Conclusions and relevanceIn this nationally representative cohort study, Medicaid expansion was associated with sustained increases in insurance coverage and improvements in chronic disease outcome measures at FQHCs after 5 years overall and among Black and Hispanic populations. States considering Medicaid expansion may benefit from improved longer-run health measures for underserved patients with chronic conditions.
| S-EPMC8796924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study.MethodsThis study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability.DiscussionThe study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.
| S-EPMC4548813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Practice-based collaborative care is a complex evidence-based practice that is difficult to implement in smaller primary care practices that lack on-site mental health staff. Telemedicine-based collaborative care virtually co-locates and integrates mental health providers into primary care settings. The objective of this multisite randomized pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial was to compare the outcomes of patients assigned to practice-based and telemedicine-based collaborative care.From 2007 to 2009, patients at federally qualified health centers serving medically underserved populations were screened for depression, and 364 patients who screened positive were enrolled and followed for 18 months. Those assigned to practice-based collaborative care received evidence-based care from an on-site primary care provider and a nurse care manager. Those assigned to telemedicine-based collaborative care received evidence-based care from an on-site primary care provider and an off-site team: a nurse care manager and a pharmacist by telephone, and a psychologist and a psychiatrist via videoconferencing. The primary clinical outcome measures were treatment response, remission, and change in depression severity.Significant group main effects were observed for both response (odds ratio=7.74, 95% CI=3.94-15.20) and remission (odds ratio=12.69, 95% CI=4.81-33.46), and a significant overall group-by-time interaction effect was observed for depression severity on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, with greater reductions in severity over time for patients in the telemedicine-based group. Improvements in outcomes appeared to be attributable to higher fidelity to the collaborative care evidence base in the telemedicine-based group.Contracting with an off-site telemedicine-based collaborative care team can yield better outcomes than implementing practice-based collaborative care with locally available staff.
| S-EPMC3816374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:While improved access to safety net primary care providers, like federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), is often cited as a route to alleviate potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits, no studies have longitudinally established the impact of improving access to FQHCs on ED use among Medicaid-insured and uninsured adults. We aimed to determine whether improved access to FQHCs was associated with lower ED use by uninsured and Medicaid-insured adults. METHODS:Using data from the Uniform Data System, U.S. Census Bureau, and California Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development, we conducted a longitudinal analysis of 58 California counties from 2005 to 2013. For each county-year observation, we employed three measures of FQHC access: geographic density of FQHCs (delivery sites per 100 square miles), FQHCs per county resident (delivery sites per 100,000 county residents), and the proportion of Medicaid-insured or uninsured residents ages 19 to 64 years that utilized FQHCs. We then used a fixed-effects model to examine the impact of changes in the measures of FQHC access on ED visit rates by Medicaid-insured or uninsured adults in each county. RESULTS:Increasing geographic density of FQHCs was associated with a 26% to 35% decrease in ED use by uninsured but not Medicaid-insured patients. Increasing numbers of clinics per county resident and higher percentages of Medicaid-insured and uninsured adults seen at FQHCs were not associated with reduced rates of ED use among either uninsured or Medicaid-insured adults. CONCLUSIONS:We were unable to detect a consistent association between our measures of FQHC access and ED use by Medicaid-insured and uninsured nonelderly California adults, underscoring the importance of investigating additional drivers to reduce ED use among these vulnerable patient populations.
| S-EPMC6370496 | biostudies-literature