Management of Hypertension in Primary Care Safety-Net Clinics in the United States: A Comparison of Community Health Centers and Private Physicians' Offices

Achieving Equity in Hypertension: A Review of Current Efforts by the American Heart Association

The purpose of this article is to summarize disparities in blood pressure (BP) by race in the United States, discuss evidence-based strategies to increase equity in BP, review recent American Heart Association BP equity initiatives, and highlight missed opportunities for achieving equity in hypertension. Over 122 million American adults have hypertension, with the highest prevalence among Black Americans. Racial disparities in hypertension and BP control in the United States are estimated to be the single largest contributor to the excess risk for cardiovascular disease among Black versus White adults. Worsening disparities in cardiovascular disease and life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemic warrant an evaluation of the strategies and opportunities to increase equity in BP in the United States. Racial disparities in hypertension are largely driven by systemic inequities that limit access to quality education, economic opportunities, neighborhoods, and health care. To address these root causes, recent studies have evaluated evidence-based strategies, including community health workers, digital health interventions, team-based care, and mobile health care to enhance access to health education, screenings, and BP care in Black communities. In 2021, the American Heart Association made a $100 million pledge and 10 commitments to support health equity. This commitment included implementing multifaceted interventions with a focus on hypertension as a seminal risk factor contributing to disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality and morbidity. The American Heart Association is one organizational example of advocacy for equity in BP. Achieving equity nationwide will require sustained collaboration among individual stakeholders and public, private, and community organizations to address barriers across multiple socioecological levels.

Using a Cohort-Based Quality Improvement Coaching Model to Optimize Chronic Disease Management for Federally Qualified Health Center Patients

CONTEXT

In fall 2020, Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, launched a 3-year, cohort-based quality improvement (QI) coaching program to assist Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in improving their clinical management of hypertension, high blood cholesterol, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.

PROGRAM

The QI program utilized a cohort-based coaching model in which 5 FQHCs were each assigned a practice transformation coach who provided them with guidance and support to monitor clinical quality measures. These measures were then used to facilitate changes and improvements in clinical workflows and approaches to patient care. To encourage peer learning and promote inter-organizational collaboration, the coaching team hosted quarterly cohort check-ins and an online group messaging board where the participating FQHCs could share lessons learned. Throughout the program, the FQHCs were provided trainings and resources to advance their clinical quality measures of choice.

IMPLEMENTATION

To implement the program, each FQHC selected 2 clinical quality measures to focus on, completing a minimum of 1 Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle per year for each measure. Throughout, the coaches met regularly with FQHC staff to discuss progress, strategize on how best to address challenges encountered, and identify training or resource needs for their clinic sites.

EVALUATION

To drive implementation of QI interventions and monitor overall progress, the FQHCs reported quarterly on the clinical quality measures being addressed. By program's end, all 5 FQHCs reached their 10% improvement goals.

DISCUSSION

This QI coaching program allowed participating FQHCs to build new competencies and achieve measurable improvements in how they managed their patients' chronic diseases. This model of practice serves as a promising approach for achieving sustainable clinical improvements in these FQHCs.

Employee Engagement in Quality Improvement and Patient Sociodemographic Characteristics in Federally Qualified Health Centers

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.

Characterizing the Uptake of Newly Opened Health Centers by Individuals Dually Enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid

Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) increasingly provide high-quality, cost-effective primary care to individuals dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. However, not everyone can access an FQHC. We used 2012 to 2018 Medicare claims and federally collected FQHC data to examine communities where an FQHC first opened and determine which dual eligibles used it. Overall uptake was 10%, ranging from 6.6% among age-eligible urban residents to 14.8% among disability-eligible rural residents. Community-level uptake ranged from 0% to 76.4% (median = 5.5%; interquartile range = 2.8%-11.3%). Certain subpopulations of dual eligibles are significantly more likely to use FQHCs. Our findings should inform the targeting of future FQHC expansions.

Resistant hypertension is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk compared to patients controlled on a similar multi-drug regimen

The long-term risk associated with resistant hypertension compared to other phenotypes of hypertension is still unclear. We aimed to assess cardiovascular and renal outcomes over 10 years of follow-up of patients with uncontrolled resistant hypertension (uRH) compared to a similarly treated (≥ 3 medication classes including a diuretic) and adherent group whose blood pressure is under control. This retrospective cohort study utilized the computerized database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, a state-mandated health provider covering 25% of the Israeli population. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Cox regression multivariable analyses. A total of 1487 patients (50% males, mean age at baseline = 68.3 ± 10.4 years) were included in the uRH cohort and 1343 patients (50% males, 66.2 ± 10.6 years) in the controlled hypertension reference group (Controlled hypertension on multi drug regimen- CH-MDR). After adjusting for age, sex, BMI and patients' comorbidities, uRH was associated with a Hazard Ratio of 1.35 (95% CI: 1.08-1.69) for incidence of ischemic heart disease, 1.51 (1.06-2.16) for secondary cardiovascular events, and 1.36 (1.00-1.86) for risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack compared to the reference group. Patients with uRH were found to have more hospitalization days (mean, 4.2 vs. 3 days per year, p < 0.001), and more emergency room visits (83.3% vs. 77%, p < 0.001). Overall, uRH was associated with a 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) increase in direct healthcare expenditures during the first year of follow-up. uRH is associated with a substantial increased risk of both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, when compared to similarly treated hypertensive patients whose blood pressure is under control.

Integration of a multicomponent intervention for hypertension into primary healthcare services in Singapore-A cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite availability of clinical practice guidelines for hypertension management, blood pressure (BP) control remains sub-optimal (<30%) even in high-income countries. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a potentially scalable multicomponent intervention integrated into primary care system compared to usual care on BP control.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 8 government clinics in Singapore. The trial enrolled 916 patients aged ≥40 years with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥90 mmHg). Multicomponent intervention consisted of physician training in risk-based treatment of hypertension, subsidized losartan-HCTZ single-pill combination (SPC) medications, nurse training in motivational conversations (MCs), and telephone follow-ups. Usual care (controls) comprised of routine care in the clinics, no MC or telephone follow-ups, and no subsidy on SPCs. The primary outcome was mean SBP at 24 months' post-baseline. Four clinics (447 patients) were randomized to intervention and 4 (469) to usual care. Patient enrolment commenced in January 2017, and follow-up was during December 2018 to September 2020. Analysis used intention-to-treat principles. The primary outcome was SBP at 24 months. BP at baseline, 12 and 24 months was modeled at the patient level in a likelihood-based, linear mixed model repeated measures analysis with treatment group, follow-up, treatment group × follow-up interaction as fixed effects, and random cluster (clinic) effects. A total of 766 (83.6%) patients completed 2-year follow-up. A total of 63 (14.1%) and 87 (18.6%) patients in intervention and in usual care, respectively, were lost to follow-up. At 24 months, the adjusted mean SBP was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to usual care (-3.3 mmHg; 95% CI: -6.34, -0.32; p = 0.03). The intervention led to higher BP control (odds ratio 1.51; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.09; p = 0.01), lower odds of high (>20%) 10-year cardiovascular risk score (OR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.97; p = 0.03), and lower mean log albuminuria (-0.22; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.02; p = 0.03). Mean DBP, mortality rates, and serious adverse events including hospitalizations were not different between groups. The main limitation was no masking in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent intervention consisting of physicians trained in risk-based treatment, subsidized SPC medications, nurse-delivered motivational conversation, and telephone follow-ups improved BP control and lowered cardiovascular risk. Wide-scale implementation of a multicomponent intervention such as the one in our trial is likely to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality globally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02972619.

Association of Differences in Treatment Intensification, Missed Visits, and Scheduled Follow-up Interval With Racial or Ethnic Disparities in Blood Pressure Control

Importance

Black patients with hypertension often have the lowest rates of blood pressure (BP) control in clinical settings. It is unknown to what extent variation in health care processes explains this disparity.

Objective

To assess whether and to what extent treatment intensification, scheduled follow-up interval, and missed visits are associated with racial and ethnic disparities in BP control.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, nested logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of BP control (defined as a systolic BP [SBP] level <140 mm Hg) by race and ethnicity, and a structural equation model was used to assess the association of treatment intensification, scheduled follow-up interval, and missed visits with racial and ethnic disparities in BP control. The study included 16 114 adults aged 20 years or older with hypertension and elevated BP (defined as an SBP level ≥140 mm Hg) during at least 1 clinic visit between January 1, 2015, and November 15, 2017. A total of 11 safety-net clinics within the San Francisco Health Network participated in the study. Data were analyzed from November 2019 to October 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Blood pressure control was assessed using the patient's most recent BP measurement as of November 15, 2017. Treatment intensification was calculated using the standard-based method, scored on a scale from -1.0 to 1.0, with -1.0 being the least amount of intensification and 1.0 being the most. Scheduled follow-up interval was defined as the mean number of days to the next scheduled visit after an elevated BP measurement. Missed visits measured the number of patients who did not show up for visits during the 4 weeks after an elevated BP measurement.

Results

Among 16 114 adults with hypertension, the mean (SD) age was 58.6 (12.1) years, and 8098 patients (50.3%) were female. A total of 4658 patients (28.9%) were Asian, 3743 (23.2%) were Black, 3694 (22.9%) were Latinx, 2906 (18.0%) were White, and 1113 (6.9%) were of other races or ethnicities (including American Indian or Alaska Native [77 patients (0.4%)], Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander [217 patients (1.3%)], and unknown [819 patients (5.1%)]). Compared with patients from all racial and ethnic groups, Black patients had lower treatment intensification scores (mean [SD], -0.33 [0.26] vs -0.29 [0.25]; β = -0.03, P < .001) and missed more visits (mean [SD], 0.8 [1.5] visits vs 0.4 [1.1] visits; β = 0.35; P < .001). In contrast, Asian patients had higher treatment intensification scores (mean [SD], -0.26 [0.23]; β = 0.02; P < .001) and fewer missed visits (mean [SD], 0.2 [0.7] visits; β = -0.20; P < .001). Black patients were less likely (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P < .001) and Asian patients were more likely (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P < .001) to achieve BP control than patients from all racial or ethnic groups. Treatment intensification and missed visits accounted for 21% and 14%, respectively, of the total difference in BP control among Black patients and 26% and 13% of the difference among Asian patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's findings suggest that racial and ethnic inequities in treatment intensification may be associated with more than 20% of observed racial or ethnic disparities in BP control, and racial and ethnic differences in visit attendance may also play a role. Ensuring more equitable provision of treatment intensification could be a beneficial health care strategy to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in BP control.

Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

In the United States, there are nearly 1,400 Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers (HCs) serving low-income and underserved populations and more than 600 of these HCs are located in rural areas. Disparities in quality of medical care in urban vs. rural areas exist but data on such differences between urban and rural HCs is limited in the literature. We examined whether urban and rural HCs differed in their performance on clinical quality measures before and after controlling for patient, organizational, and contextual characteristics.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used the 2017 Uniform Data System to examine performance on clinical quality measures between urban and rural HCs (n = 1,373). We used generalized linear regression models with the logit link function and binomial distribution, controlling for confounding factors. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found on par performance between urban and rural HCs in all but one clinical quality measure. Rural HCs had lower rates of linking patients newly diagnosed with HIV to care (74% [95% CI: 69%, 80%] vs. 83% [95% CI: 80%, 86%]). We identified control variables that systematically accounted for eliminating urban vs. rural differences in performance on clinical quality measures. We also found that both urban and rural HCs had some clinical quality performance measures that were lower than available national benchmarks. Main limitations included potential discrepancy of urban or rural designation across all HC sites within a HC organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight HCs' contributions in addressing rural disparities in quality of care and identify opportunities for improvement. Performance in both rural and urban HCs may be improved by supporting programs that increase the availability of providers, training, and provision of technical resources.

Differences in Rates of High-Value and Low-Value Care Between Community Health Centers and Private Practices

BACKGROUND

Community health centers (CHCs) are an integral part of the health care safety net. As health systems seek to improve value, it is important to understand the quality of care provided by CHCs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of CHCs compared with private practices on a comprehensive set of high-value and low-value care measures.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2010 through 2012. We compared CHCs with private practices using logistic regression models that adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, number of chronic illnesses, rural versus urban location, region of country, and survey year.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We included outpatient visits to generalist physicians at either CHCs or private practices by patients 18 years and older.

MAIN MEASURES

We examined 12 measures of high-value care and 7 measures of low-value care.

RESULTS

A total of 29,155 physician visits, representing 584,208,173 weighted visits, from 2010 through 2012 were included. CHCs were more likely to provide high-value care by ordering beta-blockers in CHF (46.9% vs. 36.5%; aOR 2.56; 95%CI 1.18-5.56), statins in diabetes (37.0% vs 35.5%; aOR 1.35; 95%CI 1.02-1.79), and providing treatment for osteoporosis (35.7% vs 23.2%; aOR 1.77; 95%CI 1.05-3.00) compared with private practices. CHCs were more likely to avoid low-value screening EKGs (98.7% vs. 88.0%; aOR 11.03; 95%CI 2.67-45.52), CBCs (75.9% vs. 65.7%; aOR 1.72; 95%CI 1.18-2.53), or urinalyses (86.0% vs. 80.5%; aOR 1.87; 95%CI 1.11-3.14) during a general medical exam. CHCs were also less likely to prescribe antibiotics for a URI (48.3% vs. 63.1%; aOR 0.59; 95%CI 0.40-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

On a number of high-value and low-value measures of care, CHCs performed similar to or better than private practices. As healthcare delivery reforms continue to progress, CHCs are well positioned to provide high-value healthcare.

Adapting and Evaluating a Health System Intervention From Kaiser Permanente to Improve Hypertension Management and Control in a Large Network of Safety-Net Clinics

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of Americans with diagnosed hypertension have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) while some integrated healthcare systems, such as Kaiser Permanente Northern California, have achieved control rates upwards 90%.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We adapted Kaiser Permanente's evidence-based treatment protocols in a racially and ethnically diverse population at 12 safety-net clinics in the San Francisco Health Network. The intervention consisted of 4 elements: a hypertension registry, a simplified treatment intensification protocol that included fixed-dose combination medications containing diuretics, standardized BP measurement protocol, and BP check visits led by registered nurse and pharmacist staff. The study population comprised patients with hypertension who made ≥1 primary care visits within the past 24 months (n=15 917) and had a recorded BP measurement within the past 12 months. We conducted a postintervention time series analysis from August 2014 to August 2016 to assess the effect of the intervention on BP control for 24 months for the pilot site and for 15 months for 11 other San Francisco Health Network clinics combined. Secondary outcomes were changes in use of guideline-recommended medication prescribing. Rates of BP control increased at the pilot site (68%-74%; P<0.01) and the 11 other San Francisco Health Network clinic sites (69%-74%; P<0.01). Statistically significant improvements in BP control rates (P<0.01) at the 11 San Francisco Health Network clinic sites occurred in all racial and ethnic groups (blacks, 60%-66%; whites, 69%-75%; Latinos, 67%-72%; Asians, 78%-82%). Use of fixed-dose combination medications increased from 10% to 13% (P<0.01), and the percentage of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescriptions dispensed in combination with a thiazide diuretic increased from 36% to 40% (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based system approaches to improving BP control can be implemented in safety-net settings and could play a pivotal role in achieving improved population BP control and reducing hypertension disparities.