Background

Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.

Objective

To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients.

Design

We analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018.

Participants

A total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians.

Main measures

Our key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not.

Key results

FQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001).

Conclusion

FQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity.

Context

One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks.

Methods

We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening.

Findings

On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are often discussed and promoted as driven by physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. However, because of the flexible nature of ACO contracts, management organizations may also become partners in ACOs. We used data from 2013-15 on 276 ACOs from the National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations to understand the prevalence of nonprovider management partners' involvement in ACOs, the services these partners provide, and the structure of ACOs that have such partners. We found that 37 percent of ACOs reported having a management partner, and two-thirds of these ACOs reported that the partner shared in the financial risks or rewards. Among ACOs with partners, 94 percent had data services provided by the partner, 87 percent received administrative services, 68 percent received educational services, and 66 percent received care coordination services. Half received all four of these services from their partner. ACOs with partners were more heavily primary care than other ACOs. ACOs with and without partners had similar performance on costs and quality in Medicare ACO programs. Our findings suggest that management partners play a central role in many ACOs, perhaps supplying smaller and physician-run ACOs with services or expertise perceived as necessary for ACO success.

Background

Advanced use of health information technology (IT) functionalities can support more comprehensive, coordinated, and patient-centered primary care services. Safety net practices may benefit disproportionately from these investments, but it is unclear whether IT use in these settings has kept pace and what organizational factors are associated with varying use of these features.

Objective

The aim was to estimate advanced use of health IT use in safety net versus nonsafety net primary care practices. We explore domains of patient engagement, population health management (decision support and registries), and electronic information exchange. We examine organizational characteristics that may differentially predict advanced use of IT across these settings, with a focus on health system ownership and/or membership in an independent practice network as key factors that may indicate available incentives and resources to support these efforts.

Research design

We conduct cross-sectional analysis of a national survey of physician practices (n=1776). We use logistic regression to predict advanced IT use in each of our domains based on safety net status and other organizational characteristics. We then use interaction models to assess whether ownership or network membership moderate the relationship between safety net status and advanced use of health IT.

Results

Health IT use was common across primary care practices, but advanced use of health IT functionalities ranged only from 30% to 50% use. Safety net settings have kept pace with adoption of features for patient engagement and population management, yet lag in information exchange capabilities compared with nonsafety net practices (odds ratio=0.52 for federally qualified health centers, P<0.001; odds ratio=0.66 for other safety net, P=0.03). However, when safety net practices are members of a health system or practice network, health IT capabilities are comparable to nonsafety net sites.

Conclusions

All outpatient settings would benefit from improved electronic health record usability and implementation support that facilitates advanced use of health IT. Safety net practices, particularly those without other sources of centralized support, need targeted resources to maintain equitable access to information exchange capabilities.

Primary care access for Medicaid patients is an ongoing area of concern. Most studies of providers' participation in Medicaid have focused on factors associated with the Medicaid program, such as reimbursement rates. Few studies have examined the characteristics of primary care practices associated with Medicaid participation. We used a nationally representative survey of primary care practices to compare practices with no, low, and high Medicaid revenue. Seventeen percent of practices received no Medicaid revenue; 38 percent and 45 percent were categorized as receiving low and high Medicaid revenue, respectively. Practices with no Medicaid revenue were more often small, independent, and located in urban areas with higher household income. These practices also have lower population health capabilities.