Readiness of US Federally Qualified Health Centers to Provide HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ard K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8561245 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision in U.S. health centers.DesignThe U.S. Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative designated health centers as the main healthcare system through which PrEP scale-up occurs. Health centers offer primary care to over 30 million disproportionately uninsured, racially or ethnically minoritized, and low-income patients. This study is the first to assess PrEP provision across health centers, including characteristics of clinics, patient populations, and policies associated with PrEP prescribing.MethodsThe Health Resources and Services Administration's Uniform Data System contained aggregate data on PrEP prescriptions and patient sociodemographics at health centers from January 1 through December 31, 2021, in 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and eight U.S. territories. We compared patient demographics and availability of Medicaid expansion and PrEP assistance programs at health centers that prescribed vs. those that did not prescribe PrEP.ResultsAcross 1375 health centers serving 30 193 278 patients, 79 163 patients were prescribed PrEP. Health centers that prescribed any PrEP had higher proportions of sexual, gender, racial, and ethnic minority patient populations compared with health centers that prescribed no PrEP. Compared with health centers that prescribed no PrEP, a higher proportion of health centers that prescribed PrEP were located in designated high-priority jurisdictions of the EHE initiative or states with Medicaid expansion or public PrEP assistance programs.ConclusionHealth centers are critical for scaling up PrEP in minoritized populations disproportionately affected by HIV, facilitated through federal and state-level policies. These findings highlight service gaps and inform future interventions to optimize PrEP implementation and support EHE initiative goals.
| S-EPMC10842666 | 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:ObjectiveTo examine associations between community residential segregation by income and race/ethnicity, and the supply of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in urban areas.Data sources and study settingArea Resource File (2000-2007) linked with 2000 U.S. Census on U.S. metropolitan counties (N = 1,786).Study designWe used logistic and negative binomial regression models with state-level fixed effects to examine how county-level characteristics in 2000 are associated with the presence of FQHCs in 2000, and with the increase in FQHCs from 2000 to 2007. Income and racial/ethnic residential segregation were measured by poverty and the non-white dissimilarity indices, respectively. Covariates included measures of federal criteria for medically underserved areas/populations.Principal findingsCounties with a high non-white dissimilarity index and a high percentage of minorities were more likely to have an FQHC in 2000. When we examined the addition of new FQHCs from 2000 to 2007, the effects of both poverty and non-white dissimilarity indices were positive and significant.ConclusionsResidential segregation likely produces geographic segregation of health services, such that provider maldistribution may explain the association between residential segregation and FQHC supply. Metropolitan areas that fail to achieve greater integration of poor and minority communities may require FQHCs to compensate for provider shortages.
| S-EPMC3589965 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9035213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Positive patient experiences with care have been linked to improved health outcomes. Patient experience surveys can provide feedback about the level of patient-centered care provided by clinical pharmacists and information about how to improve services. Objectives:Study objectives are: 1) To describe patient experience with clinical pharmacist services in a federally qualified health center (FQHC). 2) To determine if demographic or health-related factors were associated with patient experience. Methods:This cross-sectional survey included adult patients who were English or Spanish speaking, and completed a clinical pharmacist visit in March or April 2018. Patient experience was evaluated, on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with 10 items using four domains: pharmacist-patient interaction information provision, support for self-care, and involvement in decision making. In addition, one item was used to rate the overall experience. Demographic and health-related variables were also collected. Eligible patients completed the survey after their clinical pharmacist visit. Descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability, were employed. Results:Respondents (N=99) were 55.4 (SD=12.1) years and 53.1% were women. Overall, patients rated their experiences very high with the 10-item scale score of 4.8 (SD=0.4) out of 5 points and the overall experience rating of 4.9 (SD=0.4) out of 5 points. With the exception of race, there were no differences between patient experience and demographic and health-related variables. African Americans had significantly (p=0.0466) higher patient experience scores compared to Hispanics. Conclusions:Patients receiving care in a FQHC highly rated their experience with clinical pharmacists. This indicates that clinical pharmacists provided a high level of patient-centered care to a diverse group.
| S-EPMC7194041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) offer primary and preventive healthcare, including cancer screening, for the nation's most vulnerable population. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between access to FQHCs and cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs). One-way analysis of variance was conducted to compare the mean MIRs for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancers for each U.S. county for 2006-2010 by access to FQHCs (direct access, in-county FQHC; indirect access, adjacent-county FQHC; no access, no FQHC either in the county or in adjacent counties). ArcMap 10.1 software was used to map cancer MIRs and FQHC access levels. The mean MIRs for breast, cervical, and prostate cancer differed significantly across FQHC access levels (p < 0.05). In urban and healthcare professional shortage areas, mean MIRs decreased as FQHC access increased. A trend of lower breast and prostate cancer MIRs in direct access to FQHCs was found for all racial groups, but this trend was significant for whites only. States with a large proportion of rural and medically underserved areas had high mean MIRs, with correspondingly more direct FQHC access. Expanding FQHCs to more underserved areas and concentrations of disparity populations may have an important role in reducing cancer morbidity and mortality, as well as racial-ethnic disparities, in the United States.
| S-EPMC4490935 | 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:Quality improvement (QI) work is critical, particularly in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that treat underserved populations. In a national sample of 45 FQHCs, we examined how patients' sociodemographic characteristics were associated with employee engagement in QI, via innovation contests that solicited ideas for improving care and offered opportunities to vote on ideas. We posited that patients' sociodemographic characteristics influence the complexity and intensity of clinical work and thus employees' capacity to engage in QI. Regression results indicated that the percentage of patients living in poverty was negatively associated with employee participation in idea submission and voting. Moreover, the percentage of Hispanic patients was negatively associated with participation in voting. The percentage of Black patients, however, was not associated with either outcome. FQHCs that serve a higher share of low income and/or Hispanic patients may face resource and personnel constraints that reduce employees' capacity to contribute to QI efforts.
| S-EPMC9806475 | 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