How Strong Is the Primary Care Safety Net? Assessing the Ability of Federally Qualified Health Centers to Serve as Patient-Centered Medical Homes

By expanding access to affordable insurance coverage for millions of Americans, the Affordable Care Act will likely increase demand for the services provided by federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which provide an important source of care in low-income communities. A pair of Commonwealth Fund surveys asked health center leaders about their ability to function as medical homes. Survey findings show that between 2009 and 2013, the percentage of centers exhibiting medium or high levels of medical home capability almost doubled, from 32 percent to 62 percent. The greatest improvement was reported in patient tracking and care management. Despite this increased capability, health centers reported diminished ability to coordinate care with providers outside of the practice, particularly specialists. Ongoing federal funding and technical support for medical home transformation will be needed to ensure that FQHCs can fulfill their mission of providing high-quality, comprehensive care to low-income and minority populations

Undergoing Transformation to the Patient Centered Medical Home in Safety Net Health Centers: Perspectives from the Front Lines

Objectives—Safety Net Health Centers (SNHCs), which include Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide primary care for underserved, minority and low income patients. SNHCs across the country are in the process of adopting the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, based on promising early implementation data from demonstration projects. However, previous demonstration projects have not focused on the safety net and we know little about PCMH transformation in SNHCs. Design—This qualitative study characterizes early PCMH adoption experiences at SNHCs. Setting and Participants—We interviewed 98 staff,(administrators, providers, and clinical staff) at 20 of 65 SNHCs, from five states, who were participating in the first of a five-year PCMH collaborative, the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative. Main Measures—We conducted 30-45 minute, semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview questions addressed benefits anticipated, obstacles encountered, and lessons learned in transition to PCMH. Results—Anticipated benefits for participating in the PCMH included improved staff satisfaction and patient care and outcomes. Obstacles included staff resistance and lack of financial support for PCMH functions. Lessons learned included involving a range of staff, anticipating resistance, and using data as frequent feedback. Conclusions—SNHCs encounter unique challenges to PCMH implementation, including staff turnover and providing care for patients with complex needs. Staff resistance and turnover may be ameliorated through improved healthcare delivery strategies associated with the PCMH. Creating predictable and continuous funding streams may be more fundamental challenges to PCMH transformation

Safety of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose versus oral iron in patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD: an analysis of the 1-year FIND-CKD trial.

Background: The evidence base regarding the safety of intravenous (IV) iron therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is incomplete and largely based on small studies of relatively short duration. Methods: FIND-CKD (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00994318) was a 1-year, open-label, multicenter, prospective study of patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD, anemia and iron deficiency randomized (1:1:2) to IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), targeting higher (400-600 µg/L) or lower (100-200 µg/L) ferritin, or oral iron. A post hoc analysis of adverse event rates per 100 patient-years was performed to assess the safety of FCM versus oral iron over an extended period. Results: The safety population included 616 patients. The incidence of one or more adverse events was 91.0, 100.0 and 105.0 per 100 patient-years in the high ferritin FCM, low ferritin FCM and oral iron groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug was 15.9, 17.8 and 36.7 per 100 patient-years in the three groups; for serious adverse events, the incidence was 28.2, 27.9 and 24.3 per 100 patient-years. The incidence of cardiac disorders and infections was similar between groups. At least one ferritin level ≥800 µg/L occurred in 26.6% of high ferritin FCM patients, with no associated increase in adverse events. No patient with ferritin ≥800 µg/L discontinued the study drug due to adverse events. Estimated glomerular filtration rate remained the stable in all groups. Conclusions: These results further support the conclusion that correction of iron deficiency anemia with IV FCM is safe in patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD

What Factors Are Associated With Medicaid Patients’ Use of Health Centers?

Objective: To identify patient and neighborhood factors associated with health center (HC) use. Methods: A cross-sectional study of Medicaid fee-for-service claims in 2009 comparing HC users and nonusers. Results: Dually eligible patients (odds ratio [OR] 95% CI = [0.60, 0.61]) and those with high chronic disease burden (OR 95% CI = [0.73, 0.74]) had lower odds of HC use. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families participants (OR 95% CI = [1.20, 1.24]), black (OR 95% CI = [1.33, 1.36]) and Hispanic (OR 95% CI = [1.22, 1.25]) beneficiaries had higher odds. Local HC presence predicted higher HC use (OR 95% CI = [2.63, 2.70]). Conclusion: Findings may be useful in steering HC policies affecting critical access for Medicaid beneficiaries

Health care use and spending for Medicaid patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder receiving primary care in Federally Qualified Health Centers and other primary care settings

Introduction: This 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. Methods: This 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. Results: FQHC 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). Conclusions: Observed 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.</p

Mobile phone diabetes project led to improved glycemic control and net savings for Chicago plan participants

Even with the best health care available, patients with chronic illnesses typically spend no more than a few hours a year in a health care setting, while their outcomes are largely determined by their activities during the remaining 5,000 waking hours of the year. As a widely available, low-cost technology, mobile phones are a promising tool to use in engaging patients in behavior change and facilitating self-care between visits. We examined the impact of a six-month mobile health (mHealth) demonstration project among adults with diabetes who belonged to an academic medical center’s employee health plan. In addition to pre-post improvements in glycemic control (p = 0.01) and patients’ satisfaction with overall care (p = 0.04), we observed a net cost savings of 8.8 percent. Those early results suggest that mHealth programs can support health care organizations’ pursuit of the triple aim of improving patients’ experiences with care, improving population health, and reducing the per capita cost of health care

Comparing the Cost of Caring for Medicare Beneficiaries in Federally Funded Health Centers to Other Care Settings.

ObjectiveTo compare total annual costs for Medicare beneficiaries receiving primary care in federally funded health centers (HCs) to Medicare beneficiaries in physician offices and outpatient clinics.Data sources/study settingsPart A and B fee-for-service Medicare claims from 14 geographically diverse states. The sample was restricted to beneficiaries residing within primary care service areas (PCSAs) with at least one HC.Study designWe modeled separately total annual costs, annual primary care costs, and annual nonprimary care costs as a function of patient characteristics and PCSA fixed effects.Data collectionData were obtained from the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services.Principal findingsTotal median annual costs (at $2,370) for HC Medicare patients were lower by 10 percent compared to patients in physician offices ($2,667) and by 30 percent compared to patients in outpatient clinics ($3,580). This was due to lower nonprimary care costs in HCs, despite higher primary care costs.ConclusionsHCs may offer lower total cost practice style to the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare. Future research should examine whether these lower costs reflect better management by HC practitioners or more limited access to specialty care by HC patients

Utilization, quality, and spending for pediatric Medicaid enrollees with primary care in health centers vs non-health centers

Abstract Background Limited research has explored the performance of health centers (HCs) compared to other primary care settings among children in the United States. We evaluated utilization, quality, and expenditures for pediatric Medicaid enrollees receiving care in HCs versus non-HCs. Methods This national cross-sectional study utilized 2012 Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) claims to examine children 0–17 years with a primary care visit, stratified by whether majority (> 50%) of primary care visits were at HCs or non-HCs. Outcome measures include utilization (primary care visits, non-primary care outpatient visits, prescription claims, Emergency Department (ED) visits, hospitalizations) and quality (well-child visits, avoidable ED visits, avoidable hospitalizations). For children enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid, we also measured expenditures. Propensity score-based overlap weighting was used to balance covariates. Results A total of 2,383,270 Medicaid-enrolled children received the majority of their primary care at HCs, while 18,540,743 did at non-HCs. In adjusted analyses, HC patients had 20% more primary care visits, 15% less non-primary care outpatient visits, and 21% less prescription claims than non-HC patients. ED visits were similar across the two groups, while HC patients had 7% lower chance of hospitalization than non-HC. Quality of care outcomes favored HC patients in main analyses, but results were less robust when excluding managed care beneficiaries. Total expenditures among the fee-for-service subpopulation were lower by $239 (8%) for HC patients. Conclusions In this study of nationwide claims data to evaluate healthcare utilization, quality, and spending among Medicaid-enrolled children who receive primary care at HCs versus non-HCs, findings suggest primary care delivery in HCs may be associated with a more cost-effective model of healthcare for children