Katherine E M Miller1,2, Kyle L Miller, Kathleen Knocke1,3, George H Pink1,3, G Mark Holmes1,3, Brystana G Kaufman2,4. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 3. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Between January 2005 and July 2020, 171 rural hospitals closed across the United States. Little is known about the extent that other providers step in to fill the potential reduction in access from a rural hospital closure. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the trends of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) in rural areas prior to and following hospital closure. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We used publicly available data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Provider of Services files, Cecil G. Sheps Center rural hospital closures list, and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. STUDY DESIGN: We described the trends over time in the number of hospitals, hospital closures, FQHC sites, and RHCs in rural and urban ZIP codes, 2006-2018. We used two-way fixed effects and pooled generalized linear models with a logit link to estimate the probabilities of having any RHC and any FQHC within 10 straight-line miles. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to hospitals that never closed, the predicted probability of having any FQHC within 10 miles increased post closure by 5.95 and 11.57 percentage points at 1 year and 5 years, respectively (p < 0.05). The predicted probability of having any RHC within 10 miles was not significantly different following rural hospital closure. A percentage point increase in poverty rate was associated with a 1.98 and a 1.29 percentage point increase in probabilities of having an FQHC or RHC, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In areas previously served by a rural hospital, there is a higher probability of new FQHC service-delivery sites post closure. This suggests that some of the potential reductions in access to essential preventive and diagnostic services may be filled by FQHCs. However, many rural communities may have a persistent unmet need for preventive and therapeutic care.
OBJECTIVE: Between January 2005 and July 2020, 171 rural hospitals closed across the United States. Little is known about the extent that other providers step in to fill the potential reduction in access from a rural hospital closure. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the trends of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) in rural areas prior to and following hospital closure. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We used publicly available data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Provider of Services files, Cecil G. Sheps Center rural hospital closures list, and Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. STUDY DESIGN: We described the trends over time in the number of hospitals, hospital closures, FQHC sites, and RHCs in rural and urban ZIP codes, 2006-2018. We used two-way fixed effects and pooled generalized linear models with a logit link to estimate the probabilities of having any RHC and any FQHC within 10 straight-line miles. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to hospitals that never closed, the predicted probability of having any FQHC within 10 miles increased post closure by 5.95 and 11.57 percentage points at 1 year and 5 years, respectively (p < 0.05). The predicted probability of having any RHC within 10 miles was not significantly different following rural hospital closure. A percentage point increase in poverty rate was associated with a 1.98 and a 1.29 percentage point increase in probabilities of having an FQHC or RHC, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In areas previously served by a rural hospital, there is a higher probability of new FQHC service-delivery sites post closure. This suggests that some of the potential reductions in access to essential preventive and diagnostic services may be filled by FQHCs. However, many rural communities may have a persistent unmet need for preventive and therapeutic care.
Authors: Brystana G Kaufman; Sharita R Thomas; Randy K Randolph; Julie R Perry; Kristie W Thompson; George M Holmes; George H Pink Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Katherine E M Miller; Hailey J James; George Mark Holmes; Courtney H Van Houtven Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Katherine E M Miller; Kyle L Miller; Kathleen Knocke; George H Pink; G Mark Holmes; Brystana G Kaufman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Sara D Turbow; Tegveer S Uppal; J Sonya Haw; Puneet Chehal; Gail Fernandes; Megha Shah; Swapnil Rajpathak; Mohammed K Ali; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Katherine E M Miller; Kyle L Miller; Kathleen Knocke; George H Pink; G Mark Holmes; Brystana G Kaufman Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.734