Megan B Cole1, Kevin H Nguyen2, Elena Byhoff3, Genevra F Murray4. 1. Department of Health Law, Policy, & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: mbcole@bu.edu. 2. Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Rachel Gold; Arwen Bunce; Stuart Cowburn; Katie Dambrun; Marla Dearing; Mary Middendorf; Ned Mossman; Celine Hollombe; Peter Mahr; Gerardo Melgar; James Davis; Laura Gottlieb; Erika Cottrell Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Margaret E Samuels-Kalow; Krislyn M Boggs; Rebecca E Cash; Ramsey Herrington; Nathan W Mick; Maia S Rutman; Arjun K Venkatesh; Christopher P Zabbo; Ashley F Sullivan; Kohei Hasegawa; Kori S Zachrison; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Taressa K Fraze; Amanda L Brewster; Valerie A Lewis; Laura B Beidler; Genevra F Murray; Carrie H Colla Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-09-04
Authors: Julia Browne; Jessica L Mccurley; Vicki Fung; Douglas E Levy; Cheryl R Clark; Anne N Thorndike Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Kayla E Hatchell; Chelsey R Canavan; Tiffany D'cruze; Arvind Suresh; Alka Dev; Maureen Boardman; Meaghan A Kennedy Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Anna L Steeves-Reece; Christina Nicolaidis; Dawn M Richardson; Melissa Frangie; Katherin Gomez-Arboleda; Chrystal Barnes; Minnie Kang; Bruce Goldberg; Stephan R Lindner; Melinda M Davis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 4.614