Dylan H. Roby

Impact of Patient-Centered Medical Home Assignment on Emergency Room Visits Among Uninsured Patients in a County Health System

The Medical Services Initiative program—a safety net—based system of care— in Orange County included assignment of uninsured, low-income residents to a patient-centered medical home. The medical home provided case management, a team-based approach for treating disease, and increased access to primary and specialty care among other elements of a patient-centered medical home. Providers were paid an enhanced fee and pay-for-performance incentives to ensure delivery of comprehensive treatment. Medical Services Initiative enrollees who were assigned to a medical home for longer time periods were less likely to have any emergency room (ER) visits or multiple ER visits. Switching medical homes three or more times was associated with enrollees being more likely to have any ER visits or multiple ER visits. The findings provide evidence that successful implementation of the patient-centered medical home model in a county-based safety net system is possible and can reduce unnecessary ER use.

Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: The my own health report (MOHR) project

BackgroundThere is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response.MethodsThis manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment – addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues – and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs.DiscussionThe MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746

In Ten California Counties, Notable Progress In System Integration Within The Safety Net, Although Challenges Remain

When fully implemented, the Affordable Care Act will expand insurance coverage to the currently uninsured, and experiments in delivery and payment under the laws auspices could produce greater efficiencies in how care is delivered. Both factors may accelerate the development of one viable model to streamline care, integrated delivery systems--coordinated care networks that deliver all needed health services to a defined population. Through interviews and surveys, we examined ten California counties that participated in two federally and locally funded initiatives to redesign how care is delivered to predominantly poor and uninsured populations. We found substantial progress in assessing and managing access to specialists, monitoring and promoting quality, and offering disease management and care coordination training in a majority of counties. However, efforts to coordinate care, electronically disseminate patient information, and align financial incentives were less successful or more difficult to assess. We posit that integrated delivery systems could improve care efficiency and quality and make countywide safety-net systems a desirable source of care for newly insured patients under health reform.

Return to Work and Degree of Recovery Among Injured Workers in California's Workers' Compensation System

Objectives: To determine factors associated with return to work and self-reported degree of recovery among injured workers in California. Methods: Using logistic regression and survey data from a representative sample of 965 workers injured between April 1 and June 30, 2005, we investigated the impact of the primary treating physicians (PTP) occupational medicine orientation and interpersonal behavior and access to and timeliness of care on return to work and degree of recovery, controlling for worker and injury characteristics. Results: Some PTP behaviors significantly increased the likelihood of return to work and some degree of recovery, while recommendations for specialty care reduced the likelihood of returning to work or experiencing some degree of recovery. Conclusions: Targeting PTP behaviors and improving management of those referred for specialty care may improve return to work and degree of recovery of injured workers.

Assessing the Barriers to Engaging Challenging Populations in Disease Management Programs: The Medicaid Experience

Disease management has gained popularity as a way to improve health status and control of chronic illness through the use of risk stratification, targeted nurse outreach, telephonic nurse advice, and evidence-based guidelines in managing illness. Disease management programs have been successfully implemented by commercial insurers and managed care plans, as well as in Medicare and state Medicaid programs. Although evidence regarding cost savings is inconsistent, it appears that disease management programs do impact health status and quality of care, and improve self-management among the chronically ill.Disease management programs can be customized to meet the needs of vulnerable subpopulations. This article explores the barriers to dealing with chronic illness and other factors faced by disease management programs for Medicaid populations. Barriers to participation and success in disease management for Medicaid beneficiaries are apparent due to lack of access to translation and interpretation services; difficulty with community outreach; achieving buy in from providers and beneficiaries; problems with housing; difficulties accessing primary and specialty care; problems with the availability of pharmacy, durable medical equipment, and other support services; as well as difficulties with Medicaid eligibility and ‘churn’.In order to create a successful disease management program that positively impacts health status, utilization, and cost, it is necessary to consider all of these barriers when designing an intervention for Medicaid beneficiaries. Some of the innovative ways to handle the difficulties of dealing with Medicaid or other low-income populations with special healthcare needs include expanded interpretation and translation activities, extensive community outreach to patients and safety net providers such as clinics and public hospitals, providing support services related to non-medical problems experienced by enrollees, providing understandable written and verbal instructions and training related to health education and medication adherence, as well as efforts to track and maintain contact with eligible and enrolled individuals. Disease management programs can be successful in saving money and improving health in Medicaid populations. However, they must be carefully designed with the specific state Medicaid program and should target the needs of the state’s beneficiaries.

Access to Care and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A Cross-Sectional Study in 2 Latino Communities.

AbstractCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading killer of Americans. CVD is understudied among Latinos, who have high levels of CVD risk factors. This study aimed to determine whether access to health care (ie, insurance status and having a usual source of care) is associated with 4 CVD prevention factors (ie, health care utilization, CVD screening, information received from health care providers, and lifestyle factors) among Latino adults and to evaluate whether the associations depended on CVD clinical risk/disease.Data were collected as part of a community-engaged food environment intervention study in East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights, CA. Logistic regressions were fitted with insurance status and usual source of care as predictors of the 4 CVD prevention factors while controlling for demographics. Analyses were repeated with interactions between self-reported CVD clinical risk/disease and access to care measures.Access to health care significantly increased the odds of CVD prevention. Having a usual source of care was associated with all factors of prevention, whereas being insured was only associated with some factors of prevention. CVD clinical risk/disease did not moderate any associations.Although efforts to reduce CVD risk among Latinos through the Affordable Care Act could be impactful, they might have limited impact in curbing CVD among Latinos, via the laws expansion of insurance coverage. CVD prevention efforts must expand beyond the provision of insurance to effectively lower CVD rates.

Health centers and health insurance: complements, not alternatives.

While some consider health centers and universal health insurance to be opposing concepts, we consider them to be complementary. Health centers play a vital role regardless of the type of insurance system in place because they reduce barriers to care and provide quality culturally competent care to vulnerable populations. The current private employer-based US healthcare system does not create incentives for providers to care for low-income and vulnerable populations. Even in countries with universal health coverage, health centers increase access to care and improve health outcomes. Instead of arguing whether health centers or health insurance should be expanded, the debate should focus on how best to use safety net providers as health insurance coverage expands.

Costs of Smoking and Policy Strategies for California American Indian Communities

The cost of smoking has been explored for residents of the U.S. living in several states. Recent evidence has indicated that the prevalence and cost of smoking are associated with racial and ethnic groups. This study provides information on tobacco prevention and control for American Indians (AI) (American Indians refers to American Indians and Alaska Natives throughout this article. Where we use the term California tribe we specifically mean persons who are members of Indigenous tribes geographically located in the geographic area now known as the state of California.) and examines the relative impact of smoking by using behavioral and demographic characteristics in order to predict the economic cost on AIs. The analysis suggests that AIs smoke more frequently than other Californians, which results in higher health care costs, as well as morbidity and mortality due to high levels of tobacco related chronic disease. Based on these factors we urge tribes to exercise their sovereignty as governments and implement local tobacco control policy strategies. We call for public health action by community leaders in Indian country and nationwide. We must act now to protect future generations.

Insurance Type and Access to Health Care Providers and Appointments Under the Affordable Care Act

Background: Millions of adults have gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, disparities in access to care persist. Objective: This study examined differences in access to primary and specialty care among patients insured by private individual market insurance plans (both on-exchange and off-exchange) and Medicaid compared with those with employer-sponsored insurance. Research Design: Using data from the 2014 and 2015 California Health Interview Survey, logistic regression analyses were used to calculate the odds of being unable to access primary care providers, access specialty care providers and receive a needed doctor’s appointment in a timely manner, with insurance type serving as the independent variable. Interaction terms examined if the expiration of the ACA’s optional Medicaid primary care fee increase in 2014 modified any of these associations. Results: Findings showed poorer access to providers among those insured through Medicaid and the individual market (whether purchased through the state’s health insurance exchange or off-exchange) relative to employer-based insurance. Poor access to primary care providers was seen among private coverage purchased via exchanges, relative to private coverage purchased on the individual market. In addition, findings showed that reduction of Medicaid fees coincided with reduced ability to see primary care providers. However, a similar trend was seen among those with employer-based coverage, which suggests that this change may not be attributable to reductions in Medicaid fees. Conclusion: Despite ACA-related gains in insurance coverage, those with on-exchange and off-exchange individual private insurance plans and Medicaid encounter more barriers to care than those with employer-based insurance.

Large Repayments Of Premium Subsidies May Be Owed To The IRS If Family Income Changes Are Not Promptly Reported

Subsidies for health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act are refundable tax credits. They can be taken when taxes are filed or in advance, as reductions in monthly premiums that must be reconciled at tax filing. Recipients who take subsidies in advance will receive tax refunds if their subsidies were too small but will have to make repayments if their subsidies were too high. We analyzed predicted repayments and refunds for people receiving subsidies, using California as a case study. We found that many families could owe large repayments to the Internal Revenue Service at their next tax filing. If income changes were reported and credits adjusted in a timely manner throughout the tax year, the number of filers owing repayments would be reduced by 7-41 percent and the median size of repayments reduced by as much as 61 percent (depending on the level of changes reported and the method used to adjust the subsidy amounts). We recommend that the health insurance exchanges mandated by the Affordable Care Act educate consumers about how the subsidies work and the need to promptly report income changes. We also recommend that they provide tools and assistance to determine the amount of subsidies that enrollees should take in advance.