The prevalence of social care in US health care settings depends on how and whom you ask

Acceptance of Automated Social Risk Scoring in the Emergency Department: Clinician, Staff, and Patient Perspectives

Introduction

Healthcare organizations are under increasing pressure from policymakers, payers, and advocates to screen for and address patients' health-related social needs (HRSN). The emergency department (ED) presents several challenges to HRSN screening, and patients are frequently not screened for HRSNs. Predictive modeling using machine learning and artificial intelligence, approaches may address some pragmatic HRSN screening challenges in the ED. Because predictive modeling represents a substantial change from current approaches, in this study we explored the acceptability of HRSN predictive modeling in the ED.

Methods

Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patient perspectives on the acceptability and usage of predictive modeling for HRSNs in the ED were obtained through in-depth semi-structured interviews (eight per group, total 24). All participants practiced at or had received care from an urban, Midwest, safety-net hospital system. We analyzed interview transcripts using a modified thematic analysis approach with consensus coding.

Results

Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients agreed that HRSN predictive modeling must lead to actionable responses and positive patient outcomes. Opinions about using predictive modeling results to initiate automatic referrals to HRSN services were mixed. Emergency clinicians and staff wanted transparency on data inputs and usage, demanded high performance, and expressed concern for unforeseen consequences. While accepting, patients were concerned that prediction models can miss individuals who required services and might perpetuate biases.

Conclusion

Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients expressed mostly positive views about using predictive modeling for HRSNs. Yet, clinicians, staff, and patients listed several contingent factors impacting the acceptance and implementation of HRSN prediction models in the ED.

Screening for social determinants of health among populations at risk for MASLD: a scoping review

Background

Social determinants of health (SDoH) have been associated with disparate outcomes among those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and its risk factors. To address SDoH among this population, real-time SDoH screening in clinical settings is required, yet optimal screening methods are unclear. We performed a scoping review to describe the current literature on SDoH screening conducted in the clinical setting among individuals with MASLD and MASLD risk factors.

Methods

Through a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete databases through 7/2023, we identified studies with clinic-based SDoH screening among individuals with or at risk for MASLD that reported pertinent clinical outcomes including change in MASLD risk factors like diabetes and hypertension.

Results

Ten studies (8 manuscripts, 2 abstracts) met inclusion criteria involving 148,151 patients: 89,408 with diabetes and 25,539 with hypertension. Screening was primarily completed in primary care clinics, and a variety of screening tools were used. The most commonly collected SDoH were financial stability, healthcare access, food insecurity and transportation. Associations between clinical outcomes and SDoH varied; overall, higher SDoH burden was associated with poorer outcomes including elevated blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c.

Conclusion

Despite numerous epidemiologic studies showing associations between clinical outcomes and SDoH, and guidelines recommending SDoH screening, few studies describe in-clinic SDoH screening among individuals with MASLD risk factors and none among patients with MASLD. Future research should prioritize real-time, comprehensive assessments of SDoH, particularly among patients at risk for and with MASLD, to mitigate disease progression and reduce MASLD health disparities.

"Because There's Experts That Do That": Lessons Learned by Health Care Organizations When Partnering with Community Organizations

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations' partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs) are increasingly viewed as key to improving patients' social needs (e.g., food, housing, and economic insecurity). Despite this reliance on CBOs, little research explores the relationships that health care organizations develop with CBOs.

OBJECTIVE

Understand how health care organizations interact with CBOs to implement social care.

DESIGN

Thirty-three semi-structured telephone interviews collected April-July 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Administrators at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programming related to improving patients' social needs. Organizations ranged from multi-state systems to single-site practices and differed in structure, size, ownership, and geography.

MEASURES

Structure and goals of health care organizations' relationship with CBOs.

RESULTS

Most health care organizations (26 out of 29) relied on CBOs to improve their patients' social needs. Health care organization's goals for social care activities drove their relationships with CBOs. First, one-way referrals to CBOs did not require formal relationships or frequent interactions with CBOs. Second, when health care organizations contracted with CBOs to deliver discrete services, leadership-level relationships were required to launch programs while staff-to-staff interactions were used to maintain programs. Third, some health care organizations engaged in community-level activities with multiple CBOs which required more expansive, ongoing leadership-level partnerships. Administrators highlighted 4 recommendations for collaborating with CBOs: (1) engage early; (2) establish shared purpose for the collaboration; (3) determine who is best suited to lead activities; and (4) avoid making assumptions about partner organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care organizations tailored the intensity of their relationships with CBOs based on their goals. Administrators viewed informal relationships with limited interactions between organizations sufficient for many activities. Our study offers key insights into how and when health care organizations may want to develop partnerships with CBOs.

Non-response Bias in Social Risk Factor Screening Among Adult Emergency Department Patients

Healthcare organizations increasingly use screening questionnaires to assess patients' social factors, but non-response may contribute to selection bias. This study assessed differences between respondents and those refusing participation in a social factor screening. We used a cross-sectional approach with logistic regression models to measure the association between subject characteristics and social factor screening questionnaire participation. The study subjects were patients from a mid-western state safety-net hospital's emergency department. Subjects' inclusion criteria were: (1) ≥ 18 years old, (2) spoke English or Spanish, and (3) able to complete a self-administered questionnaire. We classified subjects that consented and answered the screening questionnaire in full as respondents. All others were non-respondents. Using natural language processing, we linked all subjects' participation status to demographic characteristics, clinical data, an area-level deprivation measure, and social risk factors extracted from clinical notes. We found that nearly 6 out of every 10 subjects approached (59.9%), consented, and completed the questionnaire. Subjects with prior documentation of financial insecurity were 22% less likely to respond to the screening questionnaire (marginal effect = -22.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -41.16, -3.63; p = 0.019). No other factors were significantly associated with response. This study uniquely contributes to the growing social determinants of health literature by confirming that selection bias may exist within social factor screening practices and research studies.

Social Determinants of Health-Related Z Codes and Health Care Among Patients With Hypertension

Introduction

Tracking social needs can provide information on barriers to controlling hypertension and the need for wraparound services. No recent studies have examined ICD-10-CM social determinants of health-related Z codes (Z55-Z65) to indicate social needs with a focus on patients with hypertension.

Methods

Three cohorts were identified with a diagnosis of hypertension during 2016-2017 and continuously enrolled in fee-for-service insurance through June 2021: (1) commercial, age 18-64 years (n=1,024,012); (2) private insurance to supplement Medicare (Medicare Supplement), age ≥65 years (n=296,340); and (3) Medicaid, age ≥18 years (n=146,484). Both the proportion of patients and healthcare encounters or visits with social determinants of health-related Z code were summarized annually. Patient and visit characteristics were summarized for 2019.

Results

In 2020, the highest annual documentation of social determinants of health-related Z codes was among Medicaid beneficiaries (3.02%, 0.46% commercial, 0.42% Medicare Supplement); documentation was higher among inpatient than among outpatient visits for all insurance types. Z63 (related to primary support group) was more common among commercial and Medicare Supplement beneficiaries, and Z59 (housing and economic circumstances) was more common among Medicaid beneficiaries. The 2019 total unadjusted medical expenditures were 1.85, 1.78, and 1.61 times higher for those with social determinants of health-related Z code than for those without commercial, Medicare Supplement, and Medicaid, respectively. Patients with social determinants of health-related Z code also had higher proportions of diagnosed chronic conditions. Among Medicaid beneficiaries, differences in the presence of social determinants of health-related Z code by race or ethnicity were observed.

Conclusions

Although currently underreported, social determinants of health-related Z codes provide an opportunity to integrate social and medical data and may help decision makers understand the need for additional services among individuals with hypertension.

Provision of Social Care Services by US Hospitals

Policy Points Hospitals address population health needs and patients' social determinants of health by offering social care services. Tax-exempt hospitals are required to invest in community benefits, including social care services programs, though most community benefits spending is toward unreimbursed health care services. Tax-exempt hospitals offer about 36% more social care services than for-profit hospitals. Among tax-exempt hospitals, those that allocate more resources to community benefits spending offer more types of social care services, but those in states with minimum community benefits spending requirements offer fewer social care services. Policymakers may consider specifically incentivizing community benefits expenditures toward particular social care services, including linking tax exemptions to implementation, utilization, and outcome targets, to more directly help patients.

CONTEXT

Despite growing interest in identifying patients' social needs, little is known about hospitals' provision of services to address them. We identify social care services offered by US hospitals and determine whether hospital spending or state policies toward community benefits are associated with the provision of these services by tax-exempt hospitals.

METHODS

National secondary data about hospitals were collected from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, with additional Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 data on community benefits spending from CommunityBenefitInsight.org and state-level community benefits policies from HilltopInstitute.org. Descriptive statistics for types of social care services and hospital characteristics were calculated, with bivariate chi-square and t-tests comparing for-profit and tax-exempt hospitals. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate associations between hospital characteristics and types of services offered and among tax-exempt hospitals to estimate associations between social care services and community benefits spending and policies. Multivariable logistic regressions modeled associations between community benefits spending/policies and each type of social care services.

FINDINGS

Private US hospitals offered an average of 5.7 types of social care services in 2018. Tax-exempt hospitals offered about 36% more social care services than for-profit hospitals. Larger number of beds, health system affiliation, and having community partnerships are associated with more social care services, whereas rural hospitals and those managed under contract offered fewer social care services. Among tax-exempt hospitals, greater community benefits spending is associated with offering more total (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10, p < 0.01) and patient-focused social care services (IRR = 1.16, p < 0.01). Hospitals in states with minimum community benefits spending requirements offered significantly fewer social care services.

CONCLUSIONS

Although tax-exempt status and increased community benefits spending were associated with increased social care services provision, the observation that certain hospital characteristics and state minimum community benefits spending requirements were associated with fewer social care services suggests opportunities for policy reform to increase social care services implementation.

Screening Health-Related Social Needs in Hospitals: A Systematic Review of Health Care Professional and Patient Perspectives

Health outcomes are markedly influenced by health-related social needs (HRSN) such as food insecurity and housing instability. Under new Joint Commission requirements, hospitals have recently increased attention to HRSN to reduce health disparities. To evaluate prevailing attitudes and guide hospital efforts, the authors conducted a systematic review to describe patients' and health care providers' perceptions related to screening for and addressing patients' HRSN in US hospitals. Articles were identified through PubMed and by expert recommendations, and synthesized by relevance of findings and basic study characteristics. The review included 22 articles, which showed that most health care providers believed that unmet social needs impact health and that screening for HRSN should be a standard part of hospital care. Notable differences existed between perceived importance of HRSN and actual screening rates, however. Patients reported high receptiveness to screening in hospital encounters, but cautioned to avoid stigmatization and protect privacy when screening. Limited knowledge of resources available, lack of time, and lack of actual resources were the most frequently reported barriers to screening for HRSN. Hospital efforts to screen and address HRSN will likely be facilitated by stakeholders' positive perceptions, but common barriers to screening and referral will need to be addressed to effectively scale up efforts and impact health disparities.

Implementation Support for a Social Risk Screening and Referral Process in Community Health Centers

Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

Perceived Appropriateness of Assessing for Health-related Socioeconomic Risks Among Adult Patients with Cancer

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs.

Significance

National organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs.

How can we define social care and what are the levels of true integration in integrated care? A narrative review

Purpose

Integrated health and social care initiatives are increasing and health and social care systems are aiming to improve health and social outcomes in disadvantaged groups. There is a global dialogue surrounding improving services by shifting to an integrated health and social care approach. There is consensus of what is “health care”; however, the “social care” definition remains less explored. The authors describe the state of “social care” within the current integrated care literature and identify the depth of integration in current health and social care initiatives.

Design/methodology/approach

A narrative literature review, searching Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and grey literature (from 2016 to 2021), employing a search strategy, was conducted.

Findings

In total. 276 studies were eligible for full-text review, and 33 studies were included and categorised in types: “social care as community outreach dialogues”, “social care as addressing an ageing population”, “social care as targeting multimorbidity and corresponding social risks factors” and “social care as initiatives addressing the fragmentation of services”. Most initiatives were implemented in the United Kingdom. In total, 21 studies reported expanding integrated governance and partnerships; 27 studies reported having health and social care staff with clear integrated governance; 17 had dedicated funding and 11 used data-sharing and the integration of systems’ records.

Originality/value

The authors' demonstrate that social care approaches are expanding beyond the elderly, and these models have been used to respond to multimorbidity [including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)], targeting priority groups and individuals with complex presentations.

Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the health impacts of social conditions has led US healthcare systems to consider identifying and addressing social adversity-e.g. food, housing, and transportation insecurity-in care delivery settings. Social screening is one strategy being used to gather patient information about social circumstances at the point of care. While several recent studies describe the rapid proliferation of social screening activities, little work has explored either why or how to implement social screening in clinical settings. Our study objectives were to assess diverse healthcare stakeholder perspectives on both the rationale for social screening and evidence needed to inform practice and policy-relevant implementation decisions.

METHODS

We convened five focus groups with US experts representing different stakeholder groups: patient advocates, community-based organizations, healthcare professionals, payers, and policymakers. In total, 39 experts participated in approximately 90-minute long focus groups conducted between January-March 2021. A inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze discussions.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged from focus groups, each reflecting the tension between the national enthusiasm for screening and existing evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of screening in clinical settings: (1) ambiguity about the rationale for social screening; (2) concerns about the relavence of screening tools and approaches, particularly for historically marginalized populations; (3) lack of clarity around the resources needed for implementation and scaling.

CONCLUSION

While participants across groups described potential benefits of social screening, they also highlighted knowledge gaps that interfered with realizing these benefits. Efforts to minimize and ideally resolve these knowledge gaps will advance future social screening practice and policy.

"Why Do They Want to Know?": A Qualitative Assessment of Caregiver Perspectives on Social Drivers of Health Screening in Pediatric Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

Despite strong evidence that social factors have a large influence on child health, systematic screening for social needs is not performed universally in pediatric primary care. This is due to multiple barriers, including concerns about acceptability to families. This study sought to assess family acceptability of social needs screening in pediatric primary care.

METHODS

Eight semi-structured focus groups were performed with English and Spanish-speaking caregivers of pediatric patients from a diverse academic medical center. Focus groups explored the acceptability of social domains including housing, education, finances, food access, and safety. Focus group transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes.

RESULTS

Four salient themes emerged: 1) the acceptability of social determinants of health screening questions was tied to participants' understanding of the connection between the topic and child health, 2) families preferred a warm handoff to community services, 3) families feared child protective services intervention as a result of sharing unmet social needs, and 4) positive provider rapport was an important factor in choosing to share social needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric primary care providers should feel comfortable implementing social needs screening when they can clearly explain the connection to child health. They should become knowledgeable about organizations and partners within their communities and feel empowered to connect patients to these resources.

Social Risk Factor Documentation in Emergency Departments

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Social Z codes are International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes that provide one way of documenting social risk factors in electronic health records. Despite the utility and availability of these codes, no study has examined social Z code documentation prevalence in emergency department (ED) settings.

METHODS

In this descriptive, cross-sectional study of all ED visits included in the 2018 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, we estimated the prevalence of social Z code documentation and used logistic regression to examine the association between documentation and patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Of more than 35.8 million adult and pediatric ED visits, there was a 1.21% weighted prevalence (n=452,499) of at least 1 documented social Z code. Social Z codes were significantly more likely to be documented in ED visits among patients aged 35 to 64 compared to patients aged 18 to 34 (18.6/1000 [16.9 to 20.4] versus 12.7/1000 [11.5 to 14.0], odds ratio (OR) 1.47 [1.42 to 1.53]), male patients (16.6/1000 [15.1 to 18.2] versus female 8.5/1000 [7.8 to 9.2], OR 1.97 [1.89 to 2.06]), patients with Medicaid compared to patients with private insurance (15.9/1000 [14.4 to 17.6] versus (6.6/1000 [6.0 to 7.2], OR 2.45 [1.30 to 1.63]), and patients who had a Charlson Comorbidity Index≥1 compared to those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (ranges 15.0 to 16.6/1000 versus 10.6/1000 [9.6 to 11.7], ORs ranging 1.43 to 1.58). ED visits with a primary diagnosis of mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental illness had the strongest positive association with social Z code documentation (85.6/1000 [78.4 to 93.4], OR 10.75 [9.88 to 11.70]) compared to ED visits without this primary diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

We found a very low prevalence of social Z code documentation in ED visits nationwide. More systematic social Z code documentation could support targeted social interventions, social risk payment adjustments, and future policy reforms.

Provocations for Reimagining Informatics Approaches to Health Equity

As the informatics community commits to the goal of advancing health equity, it is essential that we openly critique our current approaches and reimagine the ways in which we design, implement, evaluate, and advocate for policies related to informatics interventions. In this paper, we present five provocations as a starting point for building more conscientious informatics practice in service of this goal: 1) Health informatics interventions can create an "illusion of impactful action" without significant material benefits for marginalized patients, families, and communities; 2) Health informatics interventions target the wrong stakeholders, the wrong processes, and the wrong technologies to achieve equity; 3) Informaticians must conceptualize health literacy and other factors shaping patients' experiences as a system-level rather than individual-level characteristic; 4) Informatics interventions wrongly assume that interacting contextual factors can be meaningfully captured by over-simplified structured variables; and 5) Informatics interventions often specify the wrong system boundaries and solution space. We further assert that drastic shifts in our current practices will allow us to honor our claims of valuing patient-centered approaches, especially for marginalized communities.

"More than just giving them a piece of paper": Interviews with Primary Care on Social Needs Referrals to Community-Based Organizations

BACKGROUND

Primary care practices are responding to calls to incorporate patients' social risk factors, such as housing, food, and economic insecurity, into clinical care. Healthcare likely relies on the expertise and resources of community-based organizations to improve patients' social conditions, yet little is known about the referral process.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize referrals to community-based organizations by primary care practices.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with healthcare administrators responsible for social care efforts in their organization.

PARTICIPANTS

Administrators at 50 diverse US healthcare organizations with efforts to address patients' social risks.

MAIN MEASURES

Approaches used in primary care to implement social needs referral to community-based organizations.

RESULTS

Interviewed administrators reported that social needs referrals were an essential element in their social care activities. Administrators described the ideal referral programs as placing limited burden on care teams, providing patients with customized referrals, and facilitating closed-loop referrals. We identified three key challenges organizations experience when trying to implement the ideal referrals program: (1) developing and maintaining resources lists; (2) aligning referrals with patient needs; and (3) measuring the efficacy of referrals. Collectively, these challenges led to organizations relying on staff to manually develop and update resource lists and, in most cases, provide patients with generic referrals. Administrators not only hoped that referral platforms may help overcome some of these barriers, but also reported implementation challenges with platforms including inconsistent buy-in and use across staff; integration with electronic health records; management and prioritization of resources; and alignment with other organizations in their market.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Referrals to community-based organizations were used in primary care to improve patients' social conditions, but despite strong motivations, interviewees reported challenges providing tailored and up-to-date information to patients.

Association of Patient and System-Level Factors With Social Determinants of Health Screening

BACKGROUND

Health systems are increasingly recognizing the importance of collecting social determinants of health (SDoH) data. However, gaps remain in our understanding of facilitators or barriers to collection. To address these gaps, we evaluated a real-world implementation of a SDoH screening tool.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the implementation of the SDoH screening tool at Mayo Clinic in 2019. The outcomes are: (1) completion of screening and (2) the modality used (MyChart: filled out on patient portal; WelcomeTablet: filled out by patient on a PC-tablet; EpicCare: data obtained directly by provider and entered in chart). We conducted logistic regression for completion and multinomial logistic regression for modality. The factors of interest included race and ethnicity, use of an interpreter, and whether the visit was for primary care.

RESULTS

Overall, 58.7% (293,668/499,931) of screenings were completed. Patients using interpreters and racial/ethnic minorities were less likely to complete the screening. Primary care visits were associated with an increase in completion compared with specialty care visits. Patients who used an interpreter, racial and ethnic minorities, and primary care visits were all associated with greater WelcomeTablet and lower MyChart use.

CONCLUSION

Patient and system-level factors were associated with completion and modality. The lower completion and greater WelcomeTablet use among patients who use interpreters and racial and ethnic minorities points to the need to improve screening in these groups and that the availability of the WelcomeTablet may have prevented greater differences. The higher completion in primary care visits may mean more outreach is needed for specialists.

Screening for Social Risk at Federally Qualified Health Centers: A National Study

INTRODUCTION

Federally 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.

METHODS

Using 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.

RESULTS

Most (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.

CONCLUSIONS

There 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.

Health informatics interventions to minimize out-of-pocket medication costs for patients: what providers want

Objective

To explore diverse provider perspectives on: strategies for addressing patient medication cost barriers; patient medication cost information gaps; current medication cost-related informatics tools; and design features for future tool development.

Materials and Methods

We conducted 38 semistructured interviews with providers (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and administrators) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We used 3 rounds of qualitative coding to identify themes.

Results

Providers lacked access to information about: patients’ ability to pay for medications; true costs of full medication regimens; and cost impacts of patient insurance changes. Some providers said that while existing cost-related tools were helpful, they contained unclear insurance information and several questioned the information’s quality. Cost-related information was not available to everyone who needed it and was not always available when needed. Fragmentation of information across sources made cost-alleviation information difficult to access. Providers desired future tools to compare medication costs more directly; provide quick references on costs to facilitate clinical conversations; streamline medication resource referrals; and provide centrally accessible visual summaries of patient affordability challenges.

Discussion

These findings can inform the next generation of informatics tools for minimizing patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Future tools should support the work of a wider range of providers and situations and use cases than current tools do. Such tools would have the potential to improve prescribing decisions and better link patients to resources.

Conclusion

Results identified opportunities to fill multidisciplinary providers’ information gaps and ways in which new tools could better support medication affordability for patients.

Almost a quarter of Americans taking prescription medications have difficulty affording them. We asked 38 healthcare providers what they do to help patients get affordable medications. They try to reduce the number of medications that patients take, choose more affordable medication options, and connect them to free medications or financial help. But it is hard for providers to do these things because they don’t always know which patients have financial challenges, and they may not know how much medications cost patients. Healthcare providers use digital tools like ordering systems to pick medications for patients, but they do not always have clear price information and they do not help outside of healthcare visits with prescribers. It is also hard for healthcare providers to get information about what patients have difficulty affording medications, and about resources to help them. Healthcare providers want new and improved digital tools to help them choose medications, and to be able to compare exact medication price differences. They also want a visual sign for patients with financial challenges, and centralized information about cost reduction resources. Finally, they desire tools to help them talk to patients about mediation prices, and medication price reports for patients themselves.

Screening and Intervention for Psychosocial Needs by U.S. Obstetrician-Gynecologists

Objectives: To determine the psychosocial needs screening and intervention practices of obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) and elucidate characteristics associated with screening and resource availability. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional paper and online survey to 6288 U.S. office-based OBGYNs from March 18 to September 1, 2020, inquiring about screening and intervention practices for intimate partner violence, depression, housing, and transportation. We analyzed associations between demographic/practice characteristics and screening/having resources for all four needs. Results: 1210 OBGYNs completed the survey. One hundred ninety-five OBGYNs (16%) reported their practices screened all patients for all four needs. Having resources to address all four needs (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.04-6.34), working in health centers/clinics (PR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.43-3.45), and seeing ≥50% Medicaid patients (PR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.02-2.58) were associated with screening for all four needs. One hundred sixty-eight OBGYNs (14%) reported their practices had resources onsite to address all four needs. Working in health centers/clinics (PR = 3.99, 95% CI = 2.56-6.22), large practices (PR = 3.37, 95% CI = 1.63-6.95), Medicaid expansion states (PR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.45-4.65), and practices with >11% uninsured patients (PR 2.30, 95% CI = 1.31-4.04) were associated with having resources onsite for all four needs. Conclusion: Most OBGYN practices appeared underresourced to address psychosocial needs within clinical care. Innovative financial models or collaborative care models may help incentivize this work.

"It's Not Just the Right Thing . . . It's a Survival Tactic": Disentangling Leaders' Motivations and Worries on Social Care

Health care organizations face growing pressure to improve their patients’ social conditions, such as housing, food, and economic insecurity. Little is known about the motivations and concerns of health care organizations when implementing activities aimed at improving patients’ social conditions. We used semi-structured interviews with 29 health care organizations to explore their motivations and tensions around social care. Administrators described an interwoven set of motivations for delivering social care: (a) doing the right thing for their patients, (b) improving health outcomes, and (c) making the business case. Administrators expressed tensions around the optimal role for health care in social care including uncertainty around (a) who should be responsible, (b) whether health care has the needed capacity/skills, and (c) sustainability of social care activities. Health care administrators could use guidance and support from policy makers on how to effectively prioritize social care activities, partner with other sectors, and build the needed workforce.

Resource Brokering: Efforts to Assist Patients With Housing, Transportation, and Economic Needs in Primary Care Settings

PURPOSE

Clinicians and policy makers are exploring the role of primary care in improving patients' social conditions, yet little research examines strategies used in clinical settings to assist patients with social needs.

METHODS

Study used semistructured interviews with leaders and frontline staff at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programs used to address patients' social needs. Interviews focused on how organizations develop and implement case management-style programs to assist patients with social needs including staffing, assistance intensity, and use of referrals to community-based organizations (CBOs).

RESULTS

Organizations used case management programs to assist patients with social needs through referrals to CBOs and regular follow-up with patients. About one-half incorporated care for social needs into established case management programs and the remaining described standalone programs developed specifically to address social needs independent of clinical needs. Referrals were the foundation for assistance and included preprinted resource lists, patient-tailored lists, and warm handoffs to the CBOs. While all organizations referred patients to CBOs, some also provided more intense services such as assistance completing patients' applications for services or conducting home visits. Organizations described 4 operational challenges in addressing patients' social needs: (1) effectively engaging CBOs; (2) obtaining buy-in from clinical staff; (3) considering patients' perspectives; and (4) ensuring program sustainability.

CONCLUSION

As the US health care sector faces pressure to improve quality while managing costs, many health care organizations will likely develop or rely on case management approaches to address patients' social conditions. Health care organizations may require support to address the key operational challenges.Visual abstract.

Implementation of social needs screening in primary care: a qualitative study using the health equity implementation framework

BACKGROUND

Screening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients' health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response.

METHODS

Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Patients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.

The National Academy of Medicine Social Care Framework and COVID-19 Care Innovations

Despite social care interventions gaining traction in the US healthcare sector in recent years, the scaling of healthcare practices to address social adversity and coordinate care across sectors has been modest. Against this backdrop, the coronavirus pandemic arrived, which re-emphasized the interdependence of the health and social care sectors and motivated health systems to scale tools for identifying and addressing social needs. A framework on integrating social care into health care delivery developed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine provides a useful organizing tool to understand the social care integration innovations spurred by COVID-19, including novel approaches to social risk screening and social care interventions. As the effects of the pandemic are likely to exacerbate socioeconomic barriers to health, it is an appropriate time to apply lessons learned during the recent months to re-evaluate efforts to strengthen, scale, and sustain the health care sector's social care activities.