Dataset Information

Experiences with the Veterans' Choice Program.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To address concerns about Veterans' access to care at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act was enacted to facilitate Veterans' access to care in non-VA settings, resulting in the "Veterans Choice Program" (VCP). OBJECTIVES:To assess the characteristics of Veterans who used or planned to use the VCP, reasons for using or planning to use the VCP, and experiences with the VCP. DESIGN:Mixed-methods. SUBJECTS:After sampling Veterans in the Midwest census region receiving care at VA healthcare facilities, we included 4521 Veterans in the analyses. Of these, 60 Veterans participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. APPROACH:Quantitative data were derived from VA's administrative and clinical data and a survey of Veterans including Veteran characteristics and self-reported use of VCP. Associations between Veterans' characteristics and use or planned use of the VCP were assessed using logistic regression analysis. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS:Veterans with a higher odds of reporting use or intended use of the VCP were women, lived further distances from VA facilities, or had worse health status than other Veterans (P???0.01). Key themes included positive experiences with the VCP (timeliness of care, location of care, access to services, scheduling improvements, and coverage of services), and negative experiences with the VCP (complicated scheduling processes, inconveniently located appointments, delays securing appointments, billing confusion, and communication breakdowns). DISCUSSION:Our findings suggest that Veterans value access to care close to their home and care that addresses the needs of women and Veterans with poor health status. The Mission Act was passed in June 2018 to restructure the VCP and consolidate community care into a single program, continuing VA's commitment to support access to community care into the future.

SUBMITTER: Stroupe KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6816746 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experiences with the Veterans' Choice Program.

Stroupe Kevin T KT Martinez Rachael R Hogan Timothy P TP Gordon Elisa J EJ Gonzalez Beverly B Kale Ibuola I Osteen Chad C Tarlov Elizabeth E Weaver Frances M FM Hynes Denise M DM Smith Bridget M BM

Journal of general internal medicine 20190806 10

<h4>Background</h4>To address concerns about Veterans' access to care at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act was enacted to facilitate Veterans' access to care in non-VA settings, resulting in the "Veterans Choice Program" (VCP).<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the characteristics of Veterans who used or planned to use the VCP, reasons for using or planning to use the VCP, and experiences with the VCP.<h4>Design</h4>Mixed- ...[more]

PMID: 31388916

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood. OBJECTIVE:To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program. DESIGN:Qualitative study using interview methods. PARTICIPANTS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally. APPROACH:Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data. KEY RESULTS:VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary. CONCLUSIONS:The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up.

Project description:IntroductionThe Veterans Choice Program expanded Veteran access to community care. The Veterans Choice Program may negatively impact the receipt of preventive care services owing to care fragmentation. This study assesses 10 measures of preventive care in Veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs coverage before and after the Veterans Choice Program.MethodsThe study population included Veterans who responded to the National Health Interview Survey during the 2 time periods before and after Veterans Choice Program implementation: January 2011-October 2014 and November 2015-December 2018. Outcomes were preventive care services categorized as cardiovascular risk reduction (cholesterol monitoring, blood pressure monitoring, aspirin use), infectious disease prevention (influenza vaccination and HIV testing), and diabetes care (fasting blood glucose monitoring, podiatry visits, ophthalmology visits, influenza vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination). Two different analyses were conducted: (1) unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted pre-post analysis and (2) difference-in-differences analyses. Analyses were conducted in 2019.ResultsMeasures of cardiovascular risk reduction and influenza vaccination were not statistically different before and after Veterans Choice Program implementation using the 2 different analytic approaches. In unadjusted pre-post analysis, after Veterans Choice Program implementation, Veterans with Veterans Affairs coverage had increased HIV testing (66.1%‒75.4%, p=0.008), podiatry visits (22.4%‒38.3%, p=0.01), and ophthalmology visits (62.2%‒77.2%, p=0.02). Using multivariable adjustment for participant sociodemographic factors, Veterans Choice Program implementation was associated with higher odds of podiatry visits (AOR=2.28, 95% CI=1.24, 4.20, p=0.009) and ophthalmology visits (AOR=2.11, 95% CI=1.13, 3.94, p=0.02) among Veterans with diabetes. In difference-in-differences analyses, Veterans Choice Program implementation was associated with increased podiatry visits (AOR=2.95, 95% CI=1.49, 5.83, p=0.002) among Veterans with diabetes and Veterans Affairs coverage compared with that among those with other coverage types, but no statistically significant effect was observed for ophthalmology visits.ConclusionsVeterans with Veterans Affairs coverage and diabetes had an increase in podiatry visits after Veterans Choice Program implementation. There was no evidence that Veterans Choice Program implementation had a negative impact on the receipt of preventive care services among Veterans with Veterans Affairs coverage.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2014 Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (i.e., "Choice") allows eligible Veterans to receive covered health care outside the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System. The initial implementation of Choice was challenging, and use was limited in the first year.ObjectiveTo assess satisfaction with Choice, and identify reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction during its early implementation.Design and participantsSemi-structured telephone interviews from July to September 2015 with Choice-eligible Veterans from 25 VA facilities across the USA.Main measuresSatisfaction was assessed with 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions. We compared ratings of satisfaction with Choice and VA health care, and identified reasons for satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Choice in a thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative data.ResultsOf 195 participants, 35 had not attempted to use Choice; 43 attempted but had not received Choice care (i.e., attempted only); and 117 attempted and received Choice care. Among those who attempted only, a smaller percentage were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice than with VA health care (17.9% and 71.8%, p < 0.001); among participants who received Choice, similar percentages were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice and VA health care (66.6% and 71.1%, p = 0.45). When asked what contributed to Choice ratings, participants who attempted but did not receive Choice care reported poor access (50%), scheduling problems (20%), and care coordination issues (10%); participants who received Choice care reported improved access (27%), good quality of care (19%), and good distance to Choice provider (16%). Regardless of receipt of Choice care, most participants expressed interest in using Choice in the future (70-82%).ConclusionsAccess and scheduling barriers contributed to dissatisfaction for Veterans unsuccessfully attempting to use Choice during its initial implementation, whereas improved access and good care contributed to satisfaction for those receiving Choice care. With Veterans' continued interest in using services outside VA facilities, subsequent policy changes should address Veterans' barriers to care.

Project description:ImportanceThe Veterans Choice Program (VCP) was implemented in 2014 to help veterans gain broader access to specialized care outside of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities by providing them with purchased community care (CC).ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence and patterns in VCP-funded purchased CC after the implementation of the VCP among veterans with prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used VHA administrative data on veterans with prostate cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. These veterans were regular VHA primary care users. Analyses were performed from March to July 2023.ExposuresDriving distance (in miles) from residence to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. The location (VHA or purchased CC) in which treatment decisions were made was ascertained by considering 3 factors: (1) location of the diagnostic biopsy, (2) location of most of the postdiagnostic prostate-specific antigen laboratory testing, and (3) location of most of the postdiagnostic urological care encounters.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was receipt of definitive treatment and proportion of purchased CC by treatment type (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiotherapy [RT], or active surveillance) and by distance to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. Quality was evaluated based on receipt of definitive treatment for Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer (low risk/limited treatment benefit by guidelines).ResultsThe cohort included 45 029 veterans (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [6.9] years) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer; of these patients, 28 866 (64.1%) underwent definitive treatment. Overall, 56.8% of patients received definitive treatment from the purchased CC setting, representing 37.5% of all RP care and 66.7% of all RT care received during the study period. Most patients who received active surveillance management (92.5%) remained within the VHA. Receipt of definitive treatment increased over the study period (from 5830 patients in 2015 to 9304 in 2018), with increased purchased CC for patients living farthest from VHA tertiary care facilities. The likelihood of receiving definitive treatment of Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer was higher in the purchased CC setting (adjusted relative risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.93).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that the percentage of veterans receiving definitive treatment in VCP-funded purchased CC settings increased significantly over the study period. Increased access, however, may come at the cost of low care quality (overtreatment) for low-risk prostate cancer.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pain is a highly prevalent health condition among veterans. Traditional pharmacological interventions present unique challenges for chronic pain management including prescription opioid addiction and overdose. In alignment with the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and VA's Stepped Care Model to meet veterans' pain management needs, the Offices of Rural Health and Pain Management, Opioid Safety, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PMOP) funded an enterprise-wide initiative to implement a Step 3 integrated tele-pain program: Empower Veterans Program (EVP). EVP provides veterans with chronic pain self-care skills using a whole health driven approach to pain management.ObjectivesThe Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act prompted the strategic approach to offer non-pharmacological options to meet veterans' pain management needs. EVP, a 10-week interdisciplinary group medical appointment, leverages Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Mindful Movement, and Whole Health to provide veterans with chronic pain self-care skills. This evaluation was conducted to describe participant characteristics, graduation, and satisfaction rates; and assess pre-post patient-reported outcomes (PRO) associated with EVP participation.MethodsA sample of 639 veterans enrolled in EVP between May, 2015 and December, 2017 provided data to conduct descriptive analyses to assess participant demographics, graduation, and satisfaction rates. PRO data were analyzed using a within-participants pre-post design, and linear mixed-effects models were used to examine pre-post changes in PRO.ResultsOf 639 participants, 444 (69.48%) graduated EVP. Participant median program satisfaction rating was 8.41 (Interquartile Range: 8.20-9.20). Results indicate pre-post EVP improvements (Bonferroni-adjusted p < .003) in the three primary pain outcomes (intensity, interference, catastrophizing), and 12 of 17 secondary outcomes, including physical, psychological, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), acceptance, and mindfulness measures.DiscussionData suggest that EVP has significant positive outcomes in pain, psychological, physical, HRQoL, acceptance, and mindfulness measures for veterans with chronic pain through non-pharmacological means. Future evaluations of intervention dosing effect and long-term effectiveness of the program is needed.

Project description:IntroductionUniSA's Invictus Pathways Program (IPP) is motivated by the spirit of the Invictus Games to mobilise the benefits of sport to aid physical, psychological, and social wellbeing. Originally developed to assist veterans to train for and participate in the Invictus Games, the program has extended its scope to promote recovery and wellbeing for all veterans through physical activity. This paper describes the expectations and experiences of the IPP from the perspective of program participants.MethodsObjective measures of physical and psychological wellbeing were collected by survey, to enable description of the participating veterans' wellbeing status. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants of the IPP who had not participated in an Invictus Games or Warrior Games. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data. Coding and themes were developed through a mixture of inductive and deductive approaches to analysis. Initial themes related to previous life experience, expectations of participation, and outcomes of participation were preconceived, but the analysis provided scope for an inductive approach to formulate additional themes.FindingsFive of the participants had very high K10 scores, and scores above the norm for PCL-C, whilst one would be classified with an alcohol disorder. The qualitative analysis identified five higher order themes: Life experiences prior to participation in the IPP, Making a choice to participate in the IPP, Expectations of participation in the IPP, Impact of participation in the IPP, and Future Plans. There were perceptions that the IPP was beneficial for the participating veterans, irrespective of their physical and psychological health status. Participants described the positive impact of the IPP on their physical fitness, their social engagement, and their sense of belonging within the IPP and the university. Participants perceived the IPP to be an opportunity for them to 'give back' by contributing to the education of the students delivering the IPP. Participants reported the intention to continue being physically active. For some, this meant selection in an Invictus Games team, for others, this meant getting involved in community sporting organisations.ConclusionThe Invictus Pathways Program has been shown to have a positive impact on the physical and psychological wellbeing of the veterans who participated in its initial stages. As the program evolves, the longitudinal impact of participation, for veterans and their families, will be assessed.

Dataset Information

Experiences with the Veterans' Choice Program.

Publications

Experiences with the Veterans' Choice Program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets