Recommendations for the Evaluation of Cross-System Care Coordination from the VA State-of-the-art Working Group on VA/Non-VA Care

In response to widespread concerns regarding Veterans\u27 access to VA care, Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which required VA to establish the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). Since the inception of VCP, more than two million Veterans have received care from community providers, representing approximately 25% of Veterans enrolled in VA care. However, expanded access to non-VA care has created challenges in care coordination between VA and community health systems. In March 2018, the VA Health Services Research and Development Service hosted a VA State of the Art conference (SOTA) focused on care coordination. The SOTA convened VA researchers, program directors, clinicians, and policy makers to identify knowledge gaps regarding care coordination within the VA and between VA and community systems of care. This article provides a summary and synthesis of relevant literature and provides recommendations generated from the SOTA about how to evaluate cross-system care coordination. Care coordination is typically evaluated using health outcomes including hospital readmissions and death; however, in cross-system evaluations of care coordination, measures such as access, cost, Veteran/patient and provider satisfaction (including with cross-system communication), comparable quality metrics, context (urban vs. rural), and patient complexity (medical and mental health conditions) need to be included to fully evaluate care coordination effectiveness. Future research should examine the role of multiple individuals coordinating VA and non-VA care, and how these coordinators work together to optimize coordination

Medicaid Spending Differences for Child/Youth Community-Based Care in California’s Decentralized Public Mental Health System

This study evaluated spending differences across counties during the decade after California decentralized its public mental health system. Medicaid data for 0-25 year olds using mental health services were collapsed to the county-year level (n = 627). Multivariate models with county fixed effects were used to predict per capita spending for community-based mental health care. While counties increased their spending over time, those with relatively low initial expenditures per user continued to spend less than counties with historically higher spending levels. Spending differences per user were most noticeable in counties with larger racial/ethnic minority populations that also had historically lower spending levels

Use of Veterans Affairs and Medicaid Services for Dually Enrolled Veterans

ObjectivesTo examine how dual coverage for nonelderly, low-income veterans by Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicaid affects their demand for care.Data sourcesVeterans Affairs utilization data and Medicaid Analytic Extract Files.Study designA retrospective, longitudinal study of VA users prior to and following enrollment in Medicaid 2006-2010.Data collection/extraction methodsVeterans Affairs reliance, or proportion of care provided by VA, was estimated with beta-binomial models, adjusting for patient and state Medicaid program factors.Principal findingsIn a cohort of 19,890 nonelderly veterans, VA utilization levels were similar before and after enrolling in Medicaid. VA outpatient reliance was 0.65, and VA inpatient reliance was 0.53 after Medicaid enrollment. Factors significantly associated with greater VA reliance included sociodemographic factors, having a service-connected disability, comorbidity, and higher state Medicaid reimbursement. Factors significantly associated with less VA reliance included months enrolled in Medicaid, managed care enrollment, Medicaid eligibility type, longer drive time to VA care, greater Medicaid eligibility generosity, and better Medicaid quality.ConclusionVeterans Affairs utilization following new Medicaid enrollment remained relatively unchanged, and the VA continued to provide the large majority of care for dually enrolled veterans. There was variation among patients as Medicaid eligibility and other program factors influenced their use of Medicaid services

Veterans’ Reliance on VA Care by Type of Service and Distance to VA for Nonelderly VA-Medicaid Dual Enrollees

BackgroundNot much is known about nonelderly veterans and their reliance on care from the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system when they have access to non-VA care.ObjectivesTo estimate VA reliance for nonelderly veterans enrolled in VA and Medicaid.Research designRetrospective, longitudinal analysis of Medicaid claims data and VA administrative data to compare patients' utilization of VA and Medicaid services 12 months before and for up to 12 months after Medicaid enrollment began.SubjectsNonelderly veterans (below 65 y) receiving VA care and newly enrolled in Medicaid, calendar years 2006-2010 (N=19,890).MeasuresVA reliance (proportion of care received in VA) for major categories of outpatient and inpatient care.ResultsPatients used VA outpatient care at similar levels after enrolling in Medicaid with the exceptions of emergency department (ED) and obstetrics/gynecology care, which decreased. VA inpatient utilization was similar after Medicaid enrollment for most types of care. VA-adjusted outpatient reliance was highest for mental health care (0.99) and lowest for ED care (0.02). VA-adjusted inpatient reliance was highest for respiratory (0.80) and cancer stays (0.80) and lowest for musculoskeletal stays (0.20). Associations between VA reliance and distance to VA providers varied by type of care.ConclusionsVeterans dually enrolled in Medicaid received most of their outpatient care from the VA except ED, obstetrics/gynecology, and dental care. Patients received most of their inpatient care from Medicaid except mental health, respiratory, and cancer care. Sensitivity to travel distance to VA providers explained some of these differences

Partnership Forum: The Role of Research in the Transformation of Veterans Affairs Community Care

In response to concerns about Veterans’ access to Veterans Affairs (VA) health care services, Congress passed the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 (Choice), which broadened Veterans’ eligibility to receive health care delivered by non-VA community providers paid for by VA (ie, Community Care).1 Specifically, the Veterans Choice Program (VCP) allowed Veterans waiting longer than 30 days for specific services in VA, who lived \u3e40 miles from a VA clinic, or who experienced specific hardships in accessing VA care, the option of receiving Community Care. To help implement VCP successfully, the VA established the Office of Community Care (OCC) in fiscal year (FY) 2015 to lead the coordination of Community Care expansion. This included reorganizing local departments at each VA facility to ensure that VA/Community Care referrals across systems occurred seamlessly

Anticipating VA/non-VA care coordination demand for Veterans at high risk for hospitalization

AbstractU.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) patients' multi-system use can create challenges for VA clinicians who are responsible for coordinating Veterans' use of non-VA care, including VA-purchased care ("Community Care") and Medicare.To examine the relationship between drive distance and time-key eligibility criteria for Community Care-and VA reliance (proportion of care received in VA versus Medicare and Community Care) among Veterans at high risk for hospitalization. We used prepolicy data to anticipate the impact of the 2014 Choice Act and 2018 Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION Act), which expanded access to Community Care.Cross-sectional analysis using fractional logistic regressions to examine the relationship between a Veteran's reliance on VA for outpatient primary, mental health, and other specialty care and their drive distance/time to a VA facility.Thirteen thousand seven hundred three Veterans over the age of 65 years enrolled in VA and fee-for-service Medicare in federal fiscal year 2014 who were in the top 10th percentile for hospitalization risk.Key explanatory variables were patients' drive distance to VA > 40 miles (Choice Act criteria) and drive time to VA ≥ 30 minutes for primary and mental health care and ≥60 minutes for specialty care (MISSION Act criteria).Veterans at high risk for hospitalization with drive distance eligibility had increased odds of an outpatient specialty care visit taking place in VA when compared to Veterans who did not meet Choice Act eligibility criteria (odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.15). However, drive time eligibility (MISSION Act criteria) was associated with significantly lower odds of an outpatient specialty care visit taking place in VA (odds ratio = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.67, 0.71). Neither drive distance nor drive time were associated with reliance for outpatient primary care or mental health care.VA patients who are at high risk for hospitalization may continue to rely on VA for outpatient primary care and mental health care despite access to outside services, but may increase use of outpatient specialty care in the community in the MISSION era, increasing demand for multi-system care coordination

Partnered implementation of the veteran sponsorship initiative: protocol for a randomized hybrid type 2 effectiveness—implementation trial

BackgroundThe USA is undergoing a suicide epidemic for its youngest Veterans (18-to-34-years-old) as their suicide rate has almost doubled since 2001. Veterans are at the highest risk during their first-year post-discharge, thus creating a "deadly gap." In response, the nation has developed strategies that emphasize a preventive, universal, and public health approach and embrace the value of community interventions. The three-step theory of suicide suggests that community interventions that reduce reintegration difficulties and promote connectedness for Veterans as they transition to civilian life have the greatest likelihood of reducing suicide. Recent research shows that the effectiveness of community interventions can be enhanced when augmented by volunteer and certified sponsors (1-on-1) who actively engage with Veterans, as part of the Veteran Sponsorship Initiative (VSI).Method/designThe purpose of this randomized hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial is to evaluate the implementation of the VSI in six cities in Texas in collaboration with the US Departments of Defense, Labor and Veterans Affairs, Texas government, and local stakeholders. Texas is an optimal location for this large-scale implementation as it has the second largest population of these young Veterans and is home to the largest US military installation, Fort Hood. The first aim is to determine the effectiveness of the VSI, as evidenced by measures of reintegration difficulties, health/psychological distress, VA healthcare utilization, connectedness, and suicidal risk. The second aim is to determine the feasibility and potential utility of a stakeholder-engaged plan for implementing the VSI in Texas with the intent of future expansion in more states. The evaluators will use a stepped wedge design with a sequential roll-out to participating cities over time. Participants (n=630) will be enrolled on military installations six months prior to discharge. Implementation efforts will draw upon a bundled implementation strategy that includes strategies such as ongoing training, implementation facilitation, and audit and feedback. Formative and summative evaluations will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and will include interviews with participants and periodic reflections with key stakeholders to longitudinally identify barriers and facilitators to implementation.DiscussionThis evaluation will have important implications for the national implementation of community interventions that address the epidemic of Veteran suicide. Aligned with the Evidence Act, it is the first large-scale implementation of an evidence-based practice that conducts a thorough assessment of TSMVs during the "deadly gap."Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID number: NCT05224440 . Registered on 04 February 2022