Assessment of the Massachusetts Flexible Services Program to Address Food and Housing Insecurity in a Medicaid Accountable Care Organization.

Importance: Health systems are increasingly addressing health-related social needs. The Massachusetts Flexible Services program (Flex) is a 3-year pilot program to address food insecurity and housing insecurity by connecting Medicaid accountable care organization (ACO) enrollees to community resources. Objective: To understand barriers and facilitators of Flex implementation in 1 Medicaid ACO during the first 17 months of the program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods qualitative evaluation study from March 2020 to July 2021 used the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance/Practical, Robust Implementation, and Sustainability Model (RE-AIM/PRISM) framework. Two Mass General Brigham (MGB) hospitals and affiliated community health centers were included in the analysis. Quantitative data included all MGB Medicaid ACO enrollees. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 members of ACO staff and 17 Flex enrollees. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reach was assessed by the proportion of ACO enrollees who completed annual social needs screening (eg, food insecurity and housing insecurity) and the proportion and demographics of Flex enrollees. Qualitative interviews examined other RE-AIM/PRISM constructs (eg, implementation challenges, facilitators, and perceived effectiveness). Results: Of 67 098 Medicaid ACO enrollees from March 2020 to July 2021 (mean [SD] age, 28.8 [18.7] years), 38 442 (57.3%) completed at least 1 social needs screening; 10 730 (16.0%) screened positive for food insecurity, and 7401 (11.0%) screened positive for housing insecurity. There were 658 (1.6%) adults (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [11.8] years) and 173 (0.7%) children (<21 years; mean [SD] age, 10.1 [5.5]) enrolled in Flex; of these 831 people, 613 (73.8%) were female, 444 (53.4%) were Hispanic/Latinx, and 172 (20.7%) were Black. Most Flex enrollees (584 [88.8%] adults; 143 [82.7%] children) received the intended nutrition or housing services. Implementation challenges identified by staff interviewed included administrative burden, coordination with community organizations, data-sharing and information-sharing, and COVID-19 factors (eg, reduced clinical visits). Implementation facilitators included administrative funding for enrollment staff, bidirectional communication with community partners, adaptive strategies to identify eligible patients, and raising clinician awareness of Flex. In Flex enrollee interviews, those receiving nutrition services reported increased healthy eating and food security; they also reported higher program satisfaction than Flex enrollees receiving housing services. Enrollees who received nutrition services that allowed for selecting food based on preferences reported higher satisfaction than those not able to select food. Conclusions and Relevance: This mixed-methods qualitative evaluation study found that to improve implementation, Medicaid and health system programs that address social needs may benefit from providing funding for administrative costs, developing bidirectional data-sharing platforms, and tailoring support to patient preferences.

Group Home Staff Experiences With Work and Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Massachusetts.

Importance: Direct reports of the experiences of staff working in group homes for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or intellectual or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are rarely reported. Hearing from workers about their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic may inform future workforce and public policy. Objective: To gather baseline data on worker experience with the perceived effects of COVID-19 on health and work in the pandemic prior to initiating an intervention to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and to measure differences in worker experience by gender, race, ethnicity, education, and resident population served (persons with SMI and/or IDD/DD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey study was conducted using online then paper-based self-administration from May to September 2021 at the end of the first year of the pandemic. Staff working in 415 group homes that provided care within 6 Massachusetts organizations serving adults aged 18 years or older with SMI and/or ID/DD were surveyed. The eligible survey population included a census of staff who were currently employed in participating group homes during the study period. A total of 1468 staff completed or partially completed surveys. The overall survey response rate was 44% (range by organization, 20% to 52%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported experiential outcomes were measured in work, health, and vaccine completion. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explore experiences by gender, race, ethnicity, education, trust in experts and employers, and population served. Results: The study population included 1468 group home staff (864 [58.9%] women; 818 [55.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 98 [6.7%] Hispanic or Latino). A total of 331 (22.5%) group home staff members reported very serious perceived effects on health; 438 (29.8%) reported very serious perceived effects on mental health; 471 (32.1%) reported very serious perceived effects on health of family and friends; and 414 reported very serious perceived effects (28.2%) on access to health services, with statistically significant differences observed by race and ethnicity. Vaccine acceptance was higher among persons with higher educational attainment and trust in scientific expertise and lower among persons who self-reported as Black or Hispanic/Latino. A total of 392 (26.7%) respondents reported needing support for health needs, and 290 (19.8%) respondents reported needing support for loneliness or isolation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, approximately one-third of group home workers reported serious personal health and access to health care barriers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts. Addressing unmet health needs and access to health and mental health services, including inequities and disparities by race, ethnicity, and education, should benefit staff health and safety, as well as that of the individuals with disabilities who rely on them for support and care.

Best practices to reduce COVID-19 in group homes for individuals with serious mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities: Protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) living in group homes (GHs) and residential staff are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death compared with the general population. METHODS: We describe a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial to assess evidence-based infection prevention practices to prevent COVID-19 for residents with SMI or ID/DD and the staff in GHs. The trial will use a cluster randomized design in 400 state-funded GHs in Massachusetts for adults with SMI or ID/DD to compare effectiveness and implementation of "Tailored Best Practices" (TBP) consisting of evidence-based COVID-19 infection prevention practices adapted for residents with SMI and ID/DD and GH staff; to "General Best Practices" (GBP), consisting of required standard of care reflecting state and federal standard general guidelines for COVID-19 prevention in GHs. External (i.e., community-based research staff) and internal (i.e., GH staff leadership) personnel will facilitate implementation of TBP. The primary effectiveness outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary effectiveness outcomes include COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality in GHs. The primary implementation outcomes are fidelity to TBP and rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary implementation outcomes are adoption, adaptation, reach, and maintenance. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months post-randomization. CONCLUSIONS: This study will advance knowledge on comparative effectiveness and implementation of two different strategies to prevent COVID-19-related infection, morbidity, and mortality and promote fidelity and adoption of these interventions in high-risk GHs for residents with SMI or ID/DD and staff. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04726371.

Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation: a Mixed Methods Pilot Feasibility Study.

We conducted a mixed methods pilot feasibility study of a Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation (SEDDI) process to facilitate using healthcare data to identify patient groups experiencing gaps in the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and rapidly adapt EBIs to achieve greater access and equitable outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of SEDDI in a pilot hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of a paired colorectal cancer (CRC) and social needs screening intervention at four federally qualified community health centers (CHCs). An external facilitator partnered with CHC teams to support initial implementation, followed by the SEDDI phase focused on advancing health equity. Facilitation sessions were delivered over 8 months. Preliminary evaluation of SEDDI involved convergent mixed methods with quantitative survey and focus group data. CHCs used data to identify gaps in outreach and completion of CRC screening with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, age, and language. Adaptations to improve access and use of the intervention included cultural, linguistic, and health literacy tailoring. CHC teams reported that facilitation and systematic review of data were helpful in identifying and prioritizing gaps. None of the four CHCs completed rapid cycle testing of adaptations largely due to competing priorities during the COVID-19 response. SEDDI has the potential for advancing chronic disease prevention and management by providing a stakeholder and data-driven approach to identify and prioritize health equity targets and guide adaptations to improve health equity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04585919.

Medical Students and Patients Benefit from Virtual Non-Medical Interactions Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patient care restrictions created by the COVID-19 pandemic constrained medical students' ability to interact directly with patients. Additionally, organ transplant recipients faced increasing isolation due to the rise of telemedicine, the importance of social distancing and their immunosuppressed state. We created a pilot program to pair students with transplant patients for structured, virtual encounters and studied its impact on medical students and patients. METHODS: In May 2020, medical students conducted virtual visits with patients via telephone or video conferencing. Patients and students were surveyed regarding their experiences and independent focus groups were conducted. The survey responses and focus group discussions were deidentified, transcribed, and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Ten participating students were in their first, second, or final year of medical school. The 14 patients were liver or kidney transplant recipients or kidney donors. All interactions lasted longer than 30 minutes, with 56% greater than 1 hour. Three themes emerged related to the student experience: improvement of their clinical communication skills, development of knowledge and attitudes related to organ transplantation and donation, and independent management of a patient encounter. Three themes related to the patient experience: appreciation of the opportunity to share their personal patient experience to help educate future physicians, a cathartic and personally illuminating experience and an opportunity to share the message of donation. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot program provided a novel opportunity for virtual student-patient interactions that was feasible, well-received, and mutually beneficial. The use of virtual non-medical patient experiences allowed for experiential learning during which students learned about both clinical medicine and enhanced their communication skills directly from patients. Additionally, patients were able to engage with medical students in a new way, as teachers of clinical interactions, and reported a high level of satisfaction in addition to deriving personal benefit.

The essential role of population health during and beyond COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has fundamentally changed how health care systems deliver services and revealed the tenuousness of care delivery based on face-to-face office visits and fee-for-service reimbursement models. Robust population health management, fostered by value-based contract participation, integrates analytics and agile clinical programs and is adaptable to optimize outcomes and reduce risk during population-level crises. In this article, we describe how mature population health programs in a learning health system have been rapidly leveraged to address the challenges of the pandemic. Population-level data and care management have facilitated identification of demographic-based disparities and community outreach. Telemedicine and integrated behavioral health have ensured critical primary care and specialty access, and mobile health and postacute interventions have shifted site of care and optimized hospital utilization. Beyond the pandemic, population health can lead as a cornerstone of a resilient health system, better prepared to improve public health and mitigate risk in a value-based paradigm.

COVID-19 Emergency Reforms in Massachusetts to Support Behavioral Health Care and Reduce Mortality of People With Serious Mental Illness.

People with serious mental illness are at disproportionate risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality because of high rates of risk factors that directly parallel those related to poor coronavirus outcomes, including smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, along with housing instability, homelessness, food insecurity, and poverty. Community-based behavioral health organizations are also at risk of adverse outcomes because of dramatic declines in revenues and a diminished workforce. The State of Massachusetts has responded to this crisis by rapidly implementing a variety of policy, regulatory, and payment reforms. This column describes some of these reforms, which are designed to enhance remote telehealth delivery of care, ensure access to needed medications and residential care staff, and support the financial livelihood of community-based behavioral health services.