Provision of Social Services and Health Care Quality in US Community Health Centers, 2017

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.

Primary care-based interventions to address the financial needs of patients experiencing poverty: a scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

It is broadly accepted that poverty is associated with poor health, and the health impact of poverty has been explored in numerous high-income country settings. There is a large and growing body of evidence of the role that primary care practitioners can play in identifying poverty as a health determinant, and in interventions to address it.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

This study maps the published peer-reviewed and grey literature on primary care setting interventions to address poverty in high-income countries in order to identify key concepts and gaps in the research. This scoping review seeks to map the tools in use to identify and address patients' economic needs; describe the key types of primary care-based interventions; and examine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation.

METHODS

Using a scoping review methodology, we searched five databases, the grey literature and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify studies on interventions to address the economic needs-related social determinants of health that occur in primary health care delivery settings, in high-income countries. Findings were synthesized narratively, and examined using thematic analysis, according to iteratively identified themes.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fourteen papers were included in the review and fell into two broad categories of description and evaluation: screening tools, and economic needs-specific interventions. Primary care-based interventions that aim to address patients' financial needs operate at all levels, from passive sociodemographic data collection upon patient registration, through referral to external services, to direct intervention in addressing patients' income needs.

CONCLUSION

Tools and processes to identify and address patients' economic social needs range from those tailored to individual health practices, or addressing one specific dimension of need, to wide-ranging protocols. Primary care-based interventions to address income needs operate at all levels, from passive sociodemographic data collection, through referral to external services, to direct intervention. Measuring success has proven challenging. The decision to undertake this work requires courage on the part of health care providers because it can be difficult, time-consuming and complex. However, it is often appreciated by patients, even when the scope of action available to health care providers is quite narrow.

Receipt of Social Needs Assistance and Health Center Patient Experience of Care

INTRODUCTION

Community health centers often screen for and address patients' unmet social needs. This study examines the degree to which community health center patients report receiving social needs assistance and compares measures of access and quality between patients who received assistance versus similar patients who did not.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 4,699 nonelderly adults receiving care at community health centers from the 2014-2015 Health Resources and Services Administration Health Center Patient Survey was used, representing 12.6 million patients. The exposure-having "received social needs assistance"-was based on whether a patient received any community health center assistance accessing social programs (e.g., applying for government benefits) or basic needs (e.g., obtaining transportation, housing, food). Using logistic regression models with inverse probability of treatment weights, outcomes for patients who received social needs assistance with similar patients who did not were compared. Study outcomes, reported as absolute adjusted differences, included reporting a community health center as a usual source of care, reporting the emergency department as a usual source of care, perceived quality of care, and willingness to recommend the community health center to others. Data were analyzed in 2020.

RESULTS

Of the sample, 36% reported receiving social needs assistance, where the most common form of assistance was applying for government benefits. Relative to similar patients who did not receive social needs assistance, patients receiving assistance were significantly more likely to report a community health center as their usual source of care (adjusted difference=7.2 percentage points, 95% CI=2.2, 12.1) and to report perceived quality of care as "the best" (adjusted difference=11.1, 95% CI=5.4, 16.9). They were significantly less likely to report the emergency department as their usual source of care (adjusted difference= -4.2, 95% CI= -7.0, -1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

As community health centers and other providers consider providing social needs assistance to patients, these results suggest that doing so may be associated with improved access to and quality of care.

Addressing Social Determinants of Health Identified by Systematic Screening in a Medicaid Accountable Care Organization: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Systematic screening for social determinants of health (SDOH), such as food and housing insecurity, is increasingly implemented in primary care, particularly in the context of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO). Despite the importance of developing effective systems for SDOH resource linkage, there is limited research examining these processes. The objective of the study was to explore facilitators and barriers to addressing SDOH identified by systematic screening in a healthcare system participating in a Medicaid ACO.

METHODS

This qualitative case study took place between January and March 2020. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen staff (8 community resource staff and 7 managers) from community health centers and hospitals affiliated with a large healthcare system. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using the Framework Method.

RESULTS

Facilitators for addressing SDOH included maintaining updated resource lists, collaborating with community organizations, having leadership buy-in, and developing a trusting relationship with patients. Barriers to addressing SDOH included high caseloads, time constraints, inefficiencies in tracking, lack of community resources, and several specific patient characteristics. Further, resource staff expressed distress associated with having to communicate to patients that they were unable to address certain needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Health system, community, and individual-level facilitators and barriers should be considered when developing programs for addressing SDOH. Specifically, the psychological burden on resource staff is an important and underappreciated factor that could impact patient care and lead to staff burnout.

Concept Analysis and Proposed Definition of Community Health Center

Background: Community health centers (CHCs) have been used for delivery of health services since the 1920s and originally were intended to provide care to underserved populations. CHCs have become an integral part of healthcare systems in many countries; however, the term CHC is used synonymously with other concepts and there is no clear definition for CHC. The purpose of our concept analysis was to determine how CHCs are described in the literature and to develop a concept definition for CHC. Methods: Informed by the 8-step process described by Walker and Avant, we searched for literature spanning disciplines within health, business, and policy. We used a systematic review process to identify a range of peer-reviewed articles that help illustrate the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of CHCs. A total of 102 articles from 7 databases were included in our concept analysis. Results: We distinguished 6 attributes of a CHC: primary care; accessibility; preventative care; defined population; health promotion; and comprehensive and integrated care. About 4 antecedents fundamental to a CHC included: secure funding; vision and support; adequate human resources; and governance structure. Consequences of CHCs are improved health outcomes, efficiency, and cost-effective provision of healthcare services. Conclusions: Our concept analysis revealed core characteristics of CHCs that assisted us in synthesizing a concept definition for CHC. These characteristics and our proposed definition will help provide clarity on the concept of CHC to benefit evaluation, research, and policy development of CHCs.

Association of Primary and Specialty Care Integration on Physician Communication and Cancer Screening in Safety-Net Clinics

INTRODUCTION

Primary care providers who lack reliable referral relationships with specialists may be less likely than those who do have such relationships to conduct cancer screenings. Community health centers (CHCs), which provide primary care to disadvantaged populations, have historically reported difficulty accessing specialty care for their patients. This study aimed to describe strategies CHCs use to integrate care with specialists and examine whether more strongly integrated CHCs have higher rates of screening for colorectal and cervical cancers and report better communication with specialists.

METHODS

Using a 2017 survey of CHCs in 12 states and the District of Columbia and administrative data, we estimated the association between a composite measure of CHC/specialist integration and 1) colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates, and 2) 4 measures of CHC/specialist communication using multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Integration strategies commonly reported by CHCs included having specialists deliver care on-site (80%) and establishing referral agreements with specialists (70%). CHCs that were most integrated with specialists had 5.6 and 6.8 percentage-point higher colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates, respectively, than the least integrated CHCs (P < .05). They also had significantly higher rates of knowing that specialist visits happened (67% vs 42%), knowing visit outcomes (65% vs 42%), receiving information after visits (47% vs 21%), and timely receipt of information (44% vs 27%).

CONCLUSION

CHCs use various strategies to integrate primary and specialty care. Efforts to promote CHC/specialist integration may help increase rates of cancer screening.