Kevin T Stroupe1,2, Rachael Martinez3, Timothy P Hogan4,5, Elisa J Gordon6, Beverly Gonzalez3, Ibuola Kale3, Chad Osteen3, Elizabeth Tarlov3,7, Frances M Weaver3,8, Denise M Hynes9,10,11,12, Bridget M Smith3,13. 1. Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL, USA. kevin.stroupe@va.gov. 2. Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA. kevin.stroupe@va.gov. 3. Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL, USA. 4. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. 5. Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, and Center for Health Care Studies, and Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 8. Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA. 9. Center of Innovation to Improve Veterans Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. 10. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 11. Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA. 12. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 13. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To address concerns about Veterans' access to care at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act was enacted to facilitate Veterans' access to care in non-VA settings, resulting in the "Veterans Choice Program" (VCP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the characteristics of Veterans who used or planned to use the VCP, reasons for using or planning to use the VCP, and experiences with the VCP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods. SUBJECTS: After sampling Veterans in the Midwest census region receiving care at VA healthcare facilities, we included 4521 Veterans in the analyses. Of these, 60 Veterans participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. APPROACH: Quantitative data were derived from VA's administrative and clinical data and a survey of Veterans including Veteran characteristics and self-reported use of VCP. Associations between Veterans' characteristics and use or planned use of the VCP were assessed using logistic regression analysis. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: Veterans with a higher odds of reporting use or intended use of the VCP were women, lived further distances from VA facilities, or had worse health status than other Veterans (P ≤ 0.01). Key themes included positive experiences with the VCP (timeliness of care, location of care, access to services, scheduling improvements, and coverage of services), and negative experiences with the VCP (complicated scheduling processes, inconveniently located appointments, delays securing appointments, billing confusion, and communication breakdowns). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that Veterans value access to care close to their home and care that addresses the needs of women and Veterans with poor health status. The Mission Act was passed in June 2018 to restructure the VCP and consolidate community care into a single program, continuing VA's commitment to support access to community care into the future.
BACKGROUND: To address concerns about Veterans' access to care at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act was enacted to facilitate Veterans' access to care in non-VA settings, resulting in the "Veterans Choice Program" (VCP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the characteristics of Veterans who used or planned to use the VCP, reasons for using or planning to use the VCP, and experiences with the VCP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods. SUBJECTS: After sampling Veterans in the Midwest census region receiving care at VA healthcare facilities, we included 4521 Veterans in the analyses. Of these, 60 Veterans participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. APPROACH: Quantitative data were derived from VA's administrative and clinical data and a survey of Veterans including Veteran characteristics and self-reported use of VCP. Associations between Veterans' characteristics and use or planned use of the VCP were assessed using logistic regression analysis. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: Veterans with a higher odds of reporting use or intended use of the VCP were women, lived further distances from VA facilities, or had worse health status than other Veterans (P ≤ 0.01). Key themes included positive experiences with the VCP (timeliness of care, location of care, access to services, scheduling improvements, and coverage of services), and negative experiences with the VCP (complicated scheduling processes, inconveniently located appointments, delays securing appointments, billing confusion, and communication breakdowns). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that Veterans value access to care close to their home and care that addresses the needs of women and Veterans with poor health status. The Mission Act was passed in June 2018 to restructure the VCP and consolidate community care into a single program, continuing VA's commitment to support access to community care into the future.
Entities:
Keywords:
Veterans; access to care; evaluation; qualitative research
Authors: Susan M Frayne; Donald R Miller; Erica J Sharkansky; Valerie W Jackson; Fei Wang; Jewell H Halanych; Dan R Berlowitz; Boris Kader; Craig S Rosen; Terence M Keane Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Jack Tsai; Vera Yakovchenko; Natalie Jones; Avy Skolnik; Amanda Noska; Allen L Gifford; D Keith McInnes Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Erin P Finley; Polly H Noël; Michael Mader; Elizabeth Haro; Nancy Bernardy; Craig S Rosen; Mary Bollinger; Hector Garcia; Kathleen Sherrieb; Mary Jo V Pugh Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kevin T Stroupe; Bridget M Smith; Timothy P Hogan; Justin R St Andre; Walid F Gellad; Saul Weiner; Todd A Lee; Muriel Burk; Francesca Cunningham; John D Piette; Thea J Rogers; Zhiping Huo; Frances M Weaver Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Michael E Ohl; Margaret Carrell; Andrew Thurman; Mark Vander Weg; Teresa Hudson; Michelle Mengeling; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Carolyn L Turvey; Dawn M Klein; Kim M Nazi; Susan T Haidary; Omar Bouhaddou; Nelson Hsing; Margaret Donahue Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joseph A Boscarino; Richard E Adams; Tiah J Wingate; Joseph J Boscarino; Thomas G Urosevich; Stuart N Hoffman; H Lester Kirchner; Charles R Figley; William P Nash Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Allison A Lewinski; Matthew J Crowley; Christopher Miller; Hayden B Bosworth; George L Jackson; Karen Steinhauser; Courtney White-Clark; Felicia McCant; Leah L Zullig Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Denise M Hynes; Samuel Edwards; Alex Hickok; Meike Niederhausen; Frances M Weaver; Elizabeth Tarlov; Howard Gordon; Reside L Jacob; Brian Bartle; Allison O'Neill; Rebecca Young; Avery Laliberte Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Audrey L Jones; Adam J Gordon; Sonya E Gabrielian; Ann Elizabeth Montgomery; John R Blosnich; Allyson L Varley; Aerin J deRussy; Erika L Austin; April E Hoge; Young-Il Kim; Lillian Gelberg; Stefan G Kertesz Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.178