Dataset Information

Younger Dual-Eligibles Who Use Federally Qualified Health Centers Have More Preventable Emergency Department Visits, but Some Have Fewer Hospitalizations.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine whether younger dual-eligibles receiving care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have lower rates of ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits. DATA SOURCES:We used the 100% Medicare Part A and Part B institutional claims from 2007 to 2010 for dual-eligibles younger than 65 years, enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, who received care at an FQHC or lived in a primary care service area with an FQHC. METHODS:Our cross-sectional analysis used negative binomial regressions to model ACS hospitalizations and ED visits as a function of prior year FQHC use. The model adjusted for beneficiary age, gender, race, and chronic diseases, as well as county fixed effects, time trends, and race-FQHC use interactions. RESULTS:FQHC use is associated with a decrease in ACS hospitalization rates for whites (2.8 per 1000 persons), but an increase among blacks (2.5 per 1000 persons). FQHC use is also associated with an increase in ACS ED visits, from 27 to 33 more visits per 1000 persons per year, depending on patient race. CONCLUSIONS:ACS hospital use is higher for FQHC users than nonusers, but white FQHC users have fewer ACS hospitalizations. More research is needed to understand how this relationship varies within and between centers.

SUBMITTER: Potter AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5300961 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Younger Dual-Eligibles Who Use Federally Qualified Health Centers Have More Preventable Emergency Department Visits, but Some Have Fewer Hospitalizations.

Potter Andrew J AJ Trivedi Amal N AN Wright Brad B

Journal of primary care & community health 20160707 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether younger dual-eligibles receiving care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have lower rates of ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits.<h4>Data sources</h4>We used the 100% Medicare Part A and Part B institutional claims from 2007 to 2010 for dual-eligibles younger than 65 years, enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, who received care at an FQHC or lived in a primary care service area with an ...[more]

PMID: 27371525

Similar Datasets

Project description:RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine factors related to recruitment of eligible patients and retention of enrolled patients in diabetes group visits (GVs).MethodAs part of a cluster randomized trial, 272 eligible patients were contacted and 75 patients were eventually enrolled in GVs at six community health centers (CHC). Fisher's exact tests and χ2 tests were used to compare enrolled and nonenrolled patients by patient recruitment method, gender and preferred language. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate characteristics associated with GV attendance such as diabetes self-empowerment and diabetes-associated distress. Content analysis was used to analyse patients' open-ended survey responses, and template analysis was used to analyse CHC staff interviews.ResultsIn terms of recruitment and enrollment analysis, patients who received in-person contact only and both phone and in-person contact comprised a greater fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group, while those who received phone only and both phone and mail comprised a smaller fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group (p = 0.004). In terms of retention analysis, 70 of the 75 enrolled patients attended at least one GV (93%). The average number of GVs was 3.2 out of 6 visits. Higher GV attendance was associated with lower baseline diabetes empowerment (p = 0.03). Patients' most common self-reported motivating factors to attend GVs were to learn more about diabetes, gain improved blood glucose control and find support from peers.ConclusionIn-person recruitment for GVs at CHCs was more effective than recruitment by telephone/mail. Patients who felt less empowered to manage their diabetes were most motivated to attend GVs. These findings could help clinicians implement targeted recruitment of patient populations who are more likely to attend diabetes GVs and tailor self-management education interventions to their patient populations, particularly for underserved patients who face disparate clinical outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionFederally Qualified Health Centers serve 29.8 million low-income patients across the U.S., many of whom have unaddressed social risks. In 2019, for the first time, data on social risk screening capabilities were collected from every U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center. The objectives of this study were to describe the national rates of social risk screening capabilities across Federally Qualified Health Centers, identify organizational predictors of screening, and assess between-state heterogeneity.MethodsUsing a 100% sample of U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers (N=1,384, representing 29.8 million patients) from the 2019 Uniform Data System, the primary outcome was whether a Federally Qualified Health Center collected data on patients' social risk factors (yes/no). Summary statistics on the rates of social risk screening capabilities were generated in aggregate and by state. Linear probability models were then used to estimate the relationship between the probability of social risk screening and 7 key Federally Qualified Health Center characteristics (e.g., Federally Qualified Health Center size, Medicaid MCO contract, Medicaid accountable care organization presence). Data were analyzed in 2020‒2021.ResultsMost (71%) Federally Qualified Health Centers collected social risk data, with a between-state variation. The most common screener was the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets Risks and Experiences (43% of Federally Qualified Health Centers that screened), whereas 22% collected social risk data using a nonstandardized screener. After adjusting for other characteristics, Federally Qualified Health Centers with social risk screening capabilities served more total patients, were more likely to be located in a state with a Medicaid accountable care organization, and were less likely to have an MCO contract.ConclusionsThere has been widespread adoption of social risk screening tools across U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers, but between-state disparities exist. Targeting social risk screening resources to smaller Federally Qualified Health Centers may increase the adoption of screening tools.

Dataset Information

Younger Dual-Eligibles Who Use Federally Qualified Health Centers Have More Preventable Emergency Department Visits, but Some Have Fewer Hospitalizations.

Publications

Younger Dual-Eligibles Who Use Federally Qualified Health Centers Have More Preventable Emergency Department Visits, but Some Have Fewer Hospitalizations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets