The impact of capitated payment on preventive care utilization in community health clinics.

Only half of the United States population regularly receives recommended preventive care services. Alternative payment models (e.g., a per-member-per-month capitated payment model) may encourage the delivery of preventive services when compared to a fee-for-service visitbased model; however, evaluation is lacking in the United States. This study assesses the impact of implementing Oregon's Alternative Payment Methodology (APM) on orders for preventive services within community health centers (CHCs). This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record data from the OCHIN, Inc., 2012-2018, analyzed in 2018-2019. Twenty-seven CHCs which implemented APM in 2013-2016 were compared to six non-APM CHCs. Clinic-level quarterly rates of ordering nine preventive services in 2012-2018 were calculated. For each phase and preventive service, we used difference-in-differences analysis to assess the APM impact on ordering preventive care. We found greater increases for APM CHCs compared to non-APM CHCs for orders of mammograms (difference-in-differences estimates (DDs) across four phases:1.69-2.45). Both groups had decreases in ordering cervical cancer screenings, however, APM CHCs had smaller decreases (DDs:1.62-1.93). The APM CHCs had significantly greater decreases in influenza vaccinations (DDs:0.17-0.32). There were no consistent significant differences in pre-post changes in APM vs. non-APM CHCs for cardiometabolic risk screenings, smoking status and depression assessments. There was nonsignificant change in the proportion of nontraditional encounters in APM clinics compared to controls. Transition from fee-for-service to an APM did not negatively impact delivery of preventive care. Further studies are needed to understand how to change encounter structures to best deliver recommended preventive care.

Discordant Patient and Clinician Perspectives on the Potential Value of Genetic Services in Safety-Net Clinics.

PURPOSE: As new genetic services become available, their implementation in safety-net settings must be studied. METHODS: We interviewed stakeholders (patients and primary care clinicians) from federally qualified health centers to discuss the utility, acceptability, and priority of new genetic services. We presented scenarios tailored for each audience describing carrier testing, diagnostic testing for a developmental delay, and hereditary cancer syndrome testing. We summarized transcripts using the framework method and compared patient and clinician perspectives. RESULTS: Clinicians questioned the relevance and priority of genetic services. Hereditary cancer testing was perceived most favorably by clinicians, who focused on actionability, cost, and access to downstream care. Patients stated that access to genetic services was important and that there should be parity across safety-net and higher-resourced settings. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic services with clear clinical impact are more acceptable to clinicians in safety-net clinics. Clinicians may be underestimating patients' interest in expanded genetic services.

Impact of Alternative Payment Methodology on Primary Care Visits and Scheduling.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, Oregon initiated an Alternative Payment Methodology (APM) Experiment for select health centers, initiating capitated payments for patients with Medicaid. OBJECTIVE: To use electronic health record data to evaluate the impact of APM on visit and scheduling metrics in the first wave of experiment clinics. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective clinic cohort. Difference-in-differences analysis using generalized linear mixed modeling across 2 time thresholds: the initiation of APM and the start of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. SUBJECTS: Eight primary clinics enrolled in APM on March 1, 2013 and 10 comparison clinics not enrolled in APM during the study period (July 1, 2012 to February 28, 2015). MEASURES: Independent variable: intervention status of the clinics (APM or comparison). Dependent variables: total patient encounters, total alternative encounters, new patient visits, provider appointment availability, number of appointment overbooks and no-shows/late cancellations. RESULTS: Comparison clinics had smaller patient panels and more advanced practice providers than APM clinics, but both had similar proportions of Hispanic, Medicaid, and uninsured patients. APM clinics had a 20% greater increase in same-day openings than non-APM clinics across the APM implementation (Relative Ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.42). Otherwise, there were minimal differences in APM clinics and control clinics in wait times, visit rates, patient no-shows, and overbooks. CONCLUSIONS: APM clinics experienced a greater increase in same-day visits over the course of this experiment, but did not significantly differ from comparators in other visit metrics. Further research into other impacts of this experiment are necessary and ongoing.

Study protocol: a mixed-methods study of women's healthcare in the safety net after Affordable Care Act implementation - EVERYWOMAN.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based reproductive care reduces morbidity and mortality for women and their children, decreases health disparities and saves money. Community health centres (CHCs) are a key point of access to reproductive and primary care services for women who are publicly insured, uninsured or unable to pay for care. Women of reproductive age (15-44 years) comprise just of a quarter (26%) of the total CHC patient population, with higher than average proportions of women of colour, women with lower income and educational status and social challenges (e.g. housing). Such factors are associated with poorer reproductive health outcomes across contraceptive, preventive and pregnancy-related services. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) prioritised reproductive health as an essential component of women's preventive services to counter these barriers and increase women's access to care. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled ACA implementation through Medicaid expansion as optional, creating a natural experiment to measure the ACA's impact on women's reproductive care delivery and health outcomes. METHODS: This paper describes a 5-year, mixed-methods study comparing women's contraceptive, preventive, prenatal and postpartum care before and after ACA implementation and between Medicaid expansion and non-expansion states. Quantitative assessment will leverage electronic health record data from the ADVANCE Clinical Research Network, a network of over 130 CHCs in 24 states, to describe care and identify patient, practice and state-level factors associated with provision of recommended evidence-based care. Qualitative assessment will include patient, provider and practice level interviews to understand perceptions and utilisation of reproductive healthcare in CHC settings. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first study using patient level electronic health record data from multiple states to assess the impact of ACA implementation in conjunction with other practice and policy level factors such as Title X funding or 1115 Medicaid waivers. Findings will be relevant to policy and practice, informing efforts to enhance the provision of timely, evidence-based reproductive care, improve health outcomes and reduce disparities among women. Patient, provider and practice-level interviews will serve to contextualise our findings and develop subsequent studies and interventions to support women's healthcare provision in CHC settings.

Positive predictive values of fecal immunochemical tests used in the STOP CRC pragmatic trial.

Annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is cost-effective for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, FIT positivity rates and positive predictive value (PPV) can vary substantially, with false-positive (FP) results adding to colonoscopy burden without improving cancer detection. Our objective was to describe FIT PPV and the factors associated with FP results among patients undergoing CRC screening. In an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial of mailed-FIT outreach, clinics delivered one of three FIT brands (InSure, OC-Micro, and Hemosure). Patients who had a positive FIT result and a follow-up colonoscopy were included in this analysis (N = 1130). Patients' demographic and medical histories were abstracted from electronic health records (EHR). Associations with a FP result (ie, a positive FIT result with no evidence of advanced neoplasia during follow-up colonoscopy) were evaluated for FIT brand and patient factors using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. The mean proportion of FIT-positive results ranged from 8% in centers using the OC-Micro test to 21% for Hemosure. PPVs for advanced neoplasia were 0.30 to 0.17, respectively (P for χ2  = 0.08). In multivariable-adjusted models, use of Hemosure was associated with greater odds of a FP result than OC-Micro (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.47-8.56) or InSure (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.44-6.68). However, only female sex (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.10) and history of a colorectal condition (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.13-4.15) were significantly associated with FP. In conclusion, FIT positivity varied by brand, and FP results differed by patient factors available through the EHR. These results can be used to minimize the frequency of FP results, reducing patient distress and colonoscopy burden.

Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To test the association of elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management and maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all deliveries without prior cesarean delivery in California in 2006 using linked hospital discharge and vital statistics data. We compared elective induction at each term gestational age (37-40 weeks) as defined by The Joint Commission with expectant management in vertex, nonanomalous, singleton deliveries. We used multivariable logistic regression to test the association of elective induction and cesarean delivery, operative vaginal delivery, maternal third- or fourth-degree lacerations, perinatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress, shoulder dystocia, hyperbilirubinemia, and macrosomia (birth weight greater than 4,000 g) at each gestational week, stratified by parity. RESULTS: The cesarean delivery rate was 16%, perinatal mortality was 0.2%, and neonatal intensive care unit admission was 6.2% (N=362,154). The odds of cesarean delivery were lower among women with elective induction compared with expectant management across all gestational ages and parity (37 weeks [odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.57], 38 weeks [OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.38-0.50], 39 weeks [OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.41-0.52], 40 weeks [OR 0.57, CI 0.50-0.65]). Elective induction was not associated with increased odds of severe lacerations, operative vaginal delivery, perinatal death, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress, shoulder dystocia, or macrosomia at any term gestational age. Elective induction was associated with increased odds of hyperbilirubinemia at 37 and 38 weeks of gestation and shoulder dystocia at 39 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSION: Elective induction of labor is associated with decreased odds of cesarean delivery when compared with expectant management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : II.