Use of In-Laboratory Sleep Studies in the Veterans Health Administration and Community Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Donovan LM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330508 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Use of In-Laboratory Sleep Studies in the Veterans Health Administration and Community Care.
Donovan Lucas M LM Coggeshall Scott S SS Spece Laura J LJ Griffith Matthew F MF Palen Brian N BN Parsons Elizabeth C EC Todd-Stenberg Jeffrey A JA Glorioso Thomas J TJ Carey Evan P EP Feemster Laura C LC Zeliadt Steven B SB Kirsh Susan S Au David H DH
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20190901 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has been an option for Veterans receiving urgent care through Veterans Health Administration Community Care (CC).ObjectiveWe assessed use, arrangements, Veteran decision-making, and experiences with CC urgent care delivered via telehealth.DesignConvergent parallel mixed methods, combining multivariable regression analyses of claims data with semistructured Veteran interviews.SubjectsVeterans residing in the Western United States and Hawaii, with CC urgent care claims March 1 to September 30, 2020.Key resultsIn comparison to having in-person only visits, having a telehealth-only visit was more likely for Veterans who were non-Hispanic Black, were urban-dwelling, lived further from the clinic used, had a COVID-related visit, and did not require an in-person procedure. Predictors of having both telehealth and in-person (compared with in-person only) visits were other (non-White, non-Black) non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, urban-dwelling status, living further from the clinic used, and having had a COVID-related visit. Care arrangements varied widely; telephone-only care was common. Veteran decisions about using telehealth were driven by limitations in in-person care availability and COVID-related concerns. Veterans receiving care via telehealth generally reported high satisfaction.ConclusionsCC urgent care via telehealth played an important role in providing Veterans with care access early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of telehealth differed by Veteran characteristics; lack of in-person care availability was a driver. Future work should assess for changes in telehealth use with pandemic progression, geographic differences, and impact on care quality, care coordination, outcomes, and costs to ensure Veterans' optimal and equitable access to care.
| S-EPMC9555581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2014 Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act was intended to improve Veterans' access to timely health care by expanding their options to receive community care (CC) paid for by the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Although CC could particularly benefit rural Veterans, we know little about rural Veterans' experiences with CC.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare rural Veterans' experiences with CC and VA outpatient health care services to those of urban Veterans and examine changes over time.Research designRetrospective, cross-sectional study using data from the Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP) and VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Subjects: All Veterans who responded to the SHEP survey in Fiscal Year (FY) 16 or FY19.MeasuresOutcomes were 4 measures of care experience (Access, Communication, Coordination, and Provider Rating). Independent variables included care setting (CC/VA), rural/urban status, and demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsCompared with urban Veterans, rural Veterans rated CC the same (for specialty care) or better (for primary care). Rural Veterans reported worse experiences in CC versus VA, except for specialty care Access. Rural Veterans' care experiences improved between FY16 and FY19 in both CC and VA, with greater improvements in CC.ConclusionsRural Veterans' reported comparable or better experiences in CC compared with urban Veterans, but rural Veterans' CC experiences still lagged behind their experiences in VA for primary care. As growing numbers of Veterans use CC, VA should ensure that rural and urban Veterans' experiences with CC are at least comparable to their experiences with VA care.
| S-EPMC8132914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To compare Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients, non-VA-using veterans, and nonveterans, separated by urban/rural residence and age group, on their use of major categories of medical care and payment sources. DATA SOURCE: Expenditures for health care-using men in Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys from 1996 through 2004. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Controlling for demographics, health status, and insurance, we compared groups on population-weighted expenditures for inpatient, hospital-based outpatient, office-based, pharmacy, and other care, by major payers (self/family, private insurance, Medicare, other sources, and VA). RESULTS: VA users received most of their health care outside of the VA system, paid through private insurance or Medicare; self-payments were substantial. VA users under 65 reported worse health if they were rural residents but also lower expenditures overall and less care through private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: VA health care users get most of their medical care from non-VA providers. Working-age VA users have less insurance coverage and rely more on VA care if they live in rural areas.
| S-EPMC2754556 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine differences in use of Veterans Health Administration (VA) and Medicare outpatient services by VA primary care patients.Data sources/study settingVA administrative and Medicare claims data from 2001 to 2004.Study designRetrospective cohort study of outpatient service use by 8,964 community-based and 6,556 hospital-based VA primary care patients.Principal findingsA significant proportion of VA patients used Medicare-reimbursed primary care (>30 percent) and specialty care (>60 percent), but not mental health care (3-4 percent). Community-based patients had 17 percent fewer VA primary care visits (p<.001), 9 percent more Medicare-reimbursed visits (p<.001), and 6 percent fewer total visits (p<.05) than hospital-based patients. Community-based patients had 22 percent fewer VA specialty care visits (p<.0001) and 21 percent more Medicare-reimbursed specialty care visits (p<.0001) than hospital-based patients, but no difference in total visits (p=.80).ConclusionsMedicare-eligible VA primary care patients followed over 4 consecutive years used significant primary care and specialty care outside of VA. Community-based patients offset decreased VA use with increased service use paid by Medicare, suggesting that increasing access to VA primary care via community clinics may fragment veteran care in unintended ways. Coordination of care between VA and non-VA providers and health care systems is essential to improve the quality and continuity of care.
| S-EPMC2965504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess differences in risk (measured by expected costs associated with sociodemographic and clinical profiles) between Veterans receiving outpatient services through two community care (CC) programs: the Fee program ("Fee") and the Veterans Choice Program ("Choice").Data sources/study settingAdministrative data from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse in fiscal years (FY) 2014-2015.Study designWe compared the clinical characteristics of Veterans across three groups (Fee only, Choice only, and Fee & Choice). We classified Veterans into risk groups based on Nosos risk scores and examined the relationship between type of outpatient utilization and risk within each CC group. We also examined changes in utilization of VHA and CC in FY14-FY15. We used chi-square tests, t tests, and ANOVAs to identify significant differences between CC groups.Principal findingsOf the 1,400,977 Veterans using CC in FY15, 91.4 percent were Fee-only users, 4.4 percent Choice-only users, and 4.2 percent Fee & Choice users. Mean concurrent risk scores were higher for Fee only and Fee & Choice (1.9, SD = 2.7; 1.8, SD = 2.2) compared to Choice-only users (1.0, SD = 1.2) (p < .0001). Most CC users were "dual users" of both VHA and CC in FY14-FY15.ConclusionsAs care transitions from VHA to CC, VHA should consider how best to coordinate care with community providers to reduce duplication of efforts, improve handoffs, and achieve the best outcomes for Veterans.
| S-EPMC6235821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlder veterans in urban settings rely less on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health care, suggesting deficits of access and services for aging veterans. We aimed to identify reasons for VHA and non-VHA use across the health status of older, urban-dwelling veterans.MethodsWe examined open-ended responses from 177 veterans who were enrolled in primary care at the Bronx VA Medical Center, used non-VHA care in prior 2 years, and completed baseline interviews in a care coordination trial from March 2016 to August 2017. Using content analysis, we coded and categorized key terms and concepts into an established access framework. This framework included 5 categories: acceptability (relationship, second opinion), accessibility (distance, travel); affordability; availability (supply, specialty care); and accommodation (organization, wait-time). Self-reported health status was stratified by excellent/very good, good, and fair/poor.ResultsWe were able to categorize the responses of 166 veterans, who were older (≥75 years, 61%), minority race and ethnicity (77%), and low income (<$25,000/y, 51%). Veterans mentioned acceptability (42%) and accessibility (37%) the most, followed by affordability (33%), availability (25%), and accommodation (11%). With worse self-reported health status, accessibility intensified (excellent/very good, 24%; fair/poor, 46%; P = .031) particularly among minority veterans, while acceptability remained prominent (excellent/very good, 49%; fair/poor, 37%; P = .25). Other categories were mentioned less with no significant difference across health status.ConclusionsEven in an urban environment, proximity was a leading issue with worse health. Addressing urban accessibility and coordination for older, sicker veterans may enhance care for a growing vulnerable VHA population.
| S-EPMC9036939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfertility care is provided to Veterans through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical benefits package and includes infertility evaluation and many infertility treatments.ObjectiveOur objective was to examine the incidence and prevalence of infertility diagnoses and the receipt of infertility healthcare among Veterans using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare from 2018 to 2020.MethodsVeterans using the VHA and diagnosed with infertility during October 2017-September 2020 (FY18-20) were identified in VHA administrative data and through VA-purchased care (i.e., community care) claims. Infertility was categorized among men as azoospermia, oligospermia, and other and unspecified male infertility, and among women as anovulation, infertility of tubal origin, infertility of uterine origin, and other and unspecified female infertility using diagnosis and procedure codes (ICD-10, CPT).Key resultsA total of 17,216 Veterans had at least one VHA infertility diagnosis in FY18, FY19, or FY20, including 8766 male Veterans and 8450 female Veterans. Incident diagnoses of infertility were observed in 7192 male Veterans (10.8/10,000 person (p)-years) and 5563 female Veterans (93.6/10,000 p-years). A large proportion of Veterans who were diagnosed with infertility received an infertility-related procedure in the year of their incident diagnosis (males: 74.7, 75.3, 65.0%, FY18-20 respectively; females: 80.9, 80.8, 72.9%, FY18-20 respectively).ConclusionsIn comparison to a recent study of active duty servicemembers, we found a lower rate of infertility among Veteran men and a higher rate among Veteran women. Further work is needed to investigate military exposures and circumstances that may lead to infertility. Given the rates of infertility among Veterans and active duty servicemembers, enhancing communications between Department of Defense and VHA systems regarding sources of and treatment for infertility is essential to help more men and women benefit from infertility care during military service or as Veterans.
| S-EPMC9943037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo examine changes in rural and urban Veterans' utilization of acute inpatient care in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and non-VHA hospitals following access expansion from the Veterans Choice Act, which expanded eligibility for VHA-paid community hospitalization.MethodsUsing repeated cross-sectional data of VHA enrollees' hospitalizations in 9 states (AZ, CA, CT, FL, LA, MA, NY, PA, and SC) between 2012 and 2017, we compared rural and urban Veterans' probability of admission in VHA and non-VHA hospitals by payer over time for elective and nonelective hospitalizations using multinomial logistic regression to adjust for patient-level sociodemographic features. We also used generalized linear models to compare rural and urban Veterans' travel distances to hospitals.FindingsOver time, the probability of VHA-paid community hospitalization increased more for rural Veterans than urban Veterans. For elective inpatient care, rural Veterans' probability of VHA-paid admission increased from 2.9% (95% CI 2.6%-3.2%) in 2012 to 6.5% (95% CI 5.8%-7.1%) in 2017. These changes were associated with a temporal trend that preceded and continued after the implementation of the Veterans Choice Act. Overall travel distances to hospitalizations were similar over time; however, the mean distance traveled decreased from 39.2 miles (95% CI 35.1-43.3) in 2012 to 32.3 miles (95% CI 30.2-34.4) in 2017 for rural Veterans receiving elective inpatient care in VHA-paid hospitals.ConclusionsDespite limited access to rural hospitals, these data demonstrate an increase in rural Veterans' use of non-VHA hospitals for acute inpatient care and a small reduction in distance traveled to elective inpatient services.
| S-EPMC11136881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInitiatives to expand Veterans' access to purchased health care outside Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities ("community care") present care coordination challenges for Veterans experiencing homelessness.ObjectiveAmong Veterans with homeless experiences, to evaluate community care use and satisfaction, and compare perceptions of care coordination among Veterans using VHA services and community care to those using VHA services without community care.Research designCross-sectional analysis of responses to a 2018 mailed survey.SubjectsVHA outpatients with homeless experiences.MeasuresSelf-reported use of community care, Likert-style ratings of satisfaction with that care, and Access/Coordination experiences from the Primary Care Quality-Homeless (PCQ-H) survey.ResultsOf 4777 respondents, 1325 (26.7%) reported using community care; most of this subsample affirmed satisfaction with the community care they received (83%) and its timeliness (75%). After covariate adjustment, Veteran characteristics associated with greater community care use included female sex, being of retirement age and nonmarried, and having higher education, more financial hardship, ≥3 chronic conditions, psychological distress, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Satisfaction with community care was lower among patients with travel barriers, psychological distress, and less social support. Compared with those using the VHA without community care, Veterans using VHA services and community care were more likely to report unfavorable access/coordination experiences [odds ratio (OR)=1.34, confidence interval (CI)=1.15-1.57]. This included hassles following referral (OR=1.37, CI=1.14-1.65) and perceived delays in receiving health care (OR=1.38, CI=1.19-1.61).ConclusionsVeterans with homeless experiences value community care options. Potential access benefits are balanced with risks of unfavorable coordination experiences for vulnerable Veterans with limited resources.
| S-EPMC8119353 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7450350 | biostudies-literature