Research

Abstract: Community health centers (CHCs) play an essential role in the U.S. healthcare system, delivering comprehensive primary care to underserved populations. By statute, CHCs are required to provide a variety of basic services despite budgetary pressures. Their ability to do so in a single organizational setting was heralded as a way of assuring quality, yet the cost implications are not known. We study if integrating multiple types of services in CHCs generates scope economies. Simple comparative statics show that while safety-net providers weigh economic returns differently than for-profits, the potential benefits (or losses) associated with joint production remain relevant given cost constraints. Empirically, we take advantage of a panel of administrative data on all federally-funded CHCs, employing a multi-product cost function approach. To account for potential endogeneity between outputs and costs, we incorporated heteroskedasticity-based instrumental variables. Our measure of scope economies incorporates the comparison between hypothetically specialized versus integrated facilities. We find that while CHCs deliver a higher service volume than would be expected under profit-maximization, the co-location of comprehensive services yields substantial savings. Overall, per-patient costs are reduced by 24% due to medical-behavioral integration and by 19% for medical-dental integration. 

Under review. Full text available upon request.

Under revision and resubmission. Full text available upon request.

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the response of community health center (CHC) quality to quality levels at neighboring CHCs in the presence of non-price competition.

Data Setting and Design: A quasi-experimental study of US community health centers. Outcome variables were indices that measured overall quality of CHC care. Using patient flow data, we constructed CHC-specific Hirschman–Herfindahl index (HHI) and competitors' composite quality measure. The plausibly exogenous change in characteristics of “competitors' competitors” was exploited to identify the relationship between competition and quality of care, using a generalized two-stage least square model with instrumental variables.

Data Sources and Analytic Sample: Using the Health Center Program Uniform Data System (2014–2018), linked with American Community Survey and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we analyzed 1098 unique federally funded CHCs in 50 states and District of Columbia which had at least one neighboring CHC and had non-missing data for 2015–2018 (4226 CHC-years).

Principal Findings: Most of CHCs served populations in overlapping geographic markets, with median market concentration decreasing during the study period. A one-percent increase in competitors' quality was associated with a 0.71-percent increase in an index CHC's composite quality (p < 0.01), consisting of a 0.59-percent increase in chronic condition control rates (p < 0.01); a 0.68-percent increase in the screening and assessment rates (p < 0.01); and a 0.78-percent increase in medication management rates (p < 0.01). The association was stronger at CHCs serving a smaller proportion of uninsured patients. No significant quality reaction was observed at CHCs with a percentage of uninsured patients larger than the 75th percentile. We observed no significant associations between HHI and quality.

Conclusions: Increasing competition does not harm quality of care at CHCs. A CHC appears to improve its quality if its competitors improved quality. The beneficial quality effect was less pronounced in CHCs providing a significant proportion of care to uninsured patients, suggesting lack of incentives faced by these CHCs.

Abstract

Background: Evidence is limited on insured patients’ use of safety net providers as vertically integrated health systems spread throughout the United States.

Objectives: To examine whether market-level health system penetration is associated with: (1) switches in Medicare beneficiaries’ usual source of primary care from federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to health systems; and (2) FQHCs’ overall Medicare patient and visit volume.

Research Design: Beneficiary-level discrete-time survival analysis and market-level linear regression analysis using Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2018.

Subjects: A total of 659,652 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 and older lived in one of 27,386 empirically derived primary care markets whose usual source of care in 2013 was an FQHC or a non-FQHC–independent physician organization that predominantly served low-income patients.

Measures: Beneficiary-year measure of the probability of switching to health system-affiliated physician organizations and market-year measures of the number of FQHC visits by Medicare beneficiaries, number of beneficiaries attributed to FQHCs, and FQHC Medicare market shares.

Results: During 2013–2018, 16.5% of beneficiaries who sought care from FQHCs switched to health systems. When health system penetration increases from the 25th to 75th percentile, the probability of Medicare FQHC patient switching increases by 4.6 percentage points, with 22 fewer Medicare FQHC visits and 4 fewer beneficiaries attributed to FQHCs per market year. Complex patients and patients who sought care from non-FQHC, independent physician organizations exhibited higher rates of switching to health systems.

Conclusions: Health system expansion was associated with the loss of Medicare patients by FQHCs, suggesting potential negative spillovers of vertical integration on independent safety net providers.

Abstract

Importance: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have increasingly participated in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs), one of the most widespread value-based programs. Although FQHCs may strengthen ACOs’ ability to provide affordable care to diverse Medicare beneficiaries, evidence on ACOs’ performance by FQHC participation is limited.

Objectives: To compare beneficiary characteristics, utilization, expenditure, and quality between ACOs with and without FQHC participation and assess changes in ACO performance after including first FQHCs.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Using MSSP public use files, this cross-sectional study compared performance of ACOs that always had FQHC participation with ACOs that never had FQHC participation from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2022, supplemented with staggered difference-in-differences analyses of ACOs’ first-time inclusion of FQHCs on performance measures. Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024.

Exposure: Participation of FQHCs in the MSSP.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures of ACO-assigned beneficiaries, utilization, expenditure, and quality per ACO-year.

Results: Among 752 ACOs in the descriptive analysis, 140 ACOs always had at least 1 FQHC participant, whereas 612 ACOs never had FQHC participants. Compared with ACOs that never had FQHC participation, those that always had FQHC participation provided care to more socioeconomically disadvantaged beneficiaries (mean [SD] with dual eligibility, 2035.8 [2110.6] vs 1040.9 [1084.2] person-years; with disability, 3341.1 [3474.9] vs 1705.1 [1664.9] person-years; in racial and ethnic minoritized groups, 3690.6 [4118.4] vs 2515.1 [2762.9] person-years), with fewer primary care visits (mean [SD], 9956.6 [1926.3] vs 10 858.8 [2383.4] per 1000 person-years), more emergency department visits (mean [SD], 771.6 [190.9] vs 657.2 [160.0] per 1000 person-years), and lower levels of several quality measures. In the difference-in-differences analysis, 43 ACOs included FQHCs for the first time. Including first FQHCs was associated with increases of 872.9 dual-eligible (95% CI, 345.9-1399.8), 1137.6 disability (95% CI, 390.1-1885.1), and 1350.8 racial and ethnic minority (95% CI, 447.4-2254.1) person-years, with increases in rates of influenza immunization (5.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.4-10.4 pp), tobacco screening and cessation intervention (11.8 pp; 95% CI, 3.7-20.0 pp), and depression screening and follow-up (8.9 pp; 95% CI, 0.5-17.4 pp). No associations were observed between FQHC inclusion and utilization or expenditure.

Conclusions and Relevance: In this repeated cross-sectional study, MSSP ACOs with FQHC participation served more socioeconomically disadvantaged Medicare beneficiaries than those without FQHC participation. The inclusion of first FQHCs was associated with increased rates of several preventive services without increasing costs. Participation of safety net practices appeared to improve access to ACOs among beneficiaries from underserved communities.

Importance: The home health agency (HHA) market has seen increasingly more change in ownership transactions. Little is known about the organizational characteristics and quality of care of HHAs after ownership has changed.

Objective: To examine whether an HHA change in ownership was associated with different quality-of-care outcomes, patient volume, and staffing levels.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Using current HHA change of ownership files linked to publicly available Medicare HHA data, this staggered difference-in-differences analysis evaluated ownership change transactions of Medicare-certified HHAs from quarter 1 of 2016 to quarter 4 of 2019. Pretransaction and posttransaction HHA characteristics and quality-of-care outcomes were compared between HHAs that changed ownership and up to 8 matched controls. The transactions in the main analysis included (1) when an HHA remained as for-profit with a change in ownership and (2) when an HHA changed from nonprofit/public to for-profit ownership. The data were analyzed between November 2023 and September 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were HHA-quarter measures of star ratings, the individual quality measures that compose the star ratings based on the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, and claims-based quality metrics, such as hospitalizations and emergency department visits. The secondary outcomes included HHA year measures of Medicare patient volume, per capita payments, and staffing levels (full-time equivalents and minutes per visit).

Results: The main dataset included 294 Medicare-certified HHAs that changed ownership, matched with 2330 controls. In 3 years after an ownership change, quarterly star ratings increased by 0.18 (95% CI, 0.05-0.31) relative to matched controls, with greater increases among HHAs that converted from nonprofit/public to for-profit. No significant improvement was observed in the 60-day rates of hospital admissions or outpatient emergency department visits. Further, no significant changes were observed in the number of Medicare beneficiaries, but per capita payments increased within 2 years post–ownership change. Significant reductions were observed in full-time equivalents of registered nurses (−17% [95% CI, −31% to −3%]) and home health aides (−26% [95% CI, −39% to −13%]), as well as per-visit minutes for skilled nursing care (−5% [95% CI, −9% to −1%]), physical therapy (−3% [95% CI, −5% to 0%]), and home health aide care (−11% [95% CI, −15% to −6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance: In this difference-in-differences analysis of Medicare-certified HHAs, ownership change was associated with higher star ratings and Medicare per capita payments, but not with claims-based quality measures. Reduction in staffing levels after ownership change raises concerns about implications for quality of care.

Abstract

Objectives: To identify factors associated with clinicians’ likelihood and intensity of applying fluoride varnish (FV) overall and for visits paid by Medicaid and private insurers.

Study Design: Observational study using claims data.

Methods: Using the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (2016-2018), we conducted a repeated cross-sectional study of 2911 clinicians (7277 clinician-year observations) providing well-child visits to children aged 1 to 5 years. Zero-inflated negative binomial models estimated the probability of a clinician applying FV and the number of visits with FV applications, overall and separately for visits paid by Medicaid and private insurers.

Results: A total of 30.9% of clinician-years applied FV at least once, and overall, an average of 8.4% of a clinician’s well-child visits included FV annually. Controlling for all covariates, having a higher percentage of patients insured by Medicaid was associated with applying FV (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.23-1.45) and a higher expected number of applications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09). Additionally, having a higher percentage of patients aged 1 to 5 years was associated with applying FV (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.43), but not the number of applications. Similar associations were observed among visits paid by private insurers.

Conclusions: Despite clinical recommendations and mandated insurance reimbursements, the likelihood and intensity of FV applications was low for most pediatric primary care clinicians. Clinician behavior was associated with patient-panel characteristics, suggesting the need for interventions that account for these differences.

Abstract

Objectives: Little is known about how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected influenza vaccine utilization and disparities. We sought to estimate changes in the likelihood of receiving an influenza vaccine across different demographic subgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: In this cohort study, we analyzed influenza vaccine uptake from 2019 to 2020 using Optum commercial insurance claims data. Eligible individuals were aged 18 or above in 2018 and continuously enrolled from 08/01/2018 through 12/31/2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were fitted for the individual-level influenza vaccine uptake. Adjusting for demographic factors and medical histories, we estimated probabilities of receiving influenza vaccines before and after the COVID-19 pandemic across demographic subgroups.

Results: From August to December 2019, unadjusted influenza vaccination rate was 42.3%, while in the same period of 2020, the vaccination rate increased to 45.9%. Females had a higher vaccination rate in 2019 (OR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.16), but the increase was larger for males. Blacks and Hispanics had lower vaccination rates relative to whites in both flu seasons. Hispanics showed a greater increase in vaccination rate, increasing by 7.8 percentage points (p < .001) compared to 4.4 (p < .001) for whites. The vaccination rate for Blacks increased by 5.2 percentage points (p < .001). All income groups experienced vaccination improvements, but poorer individuals had lower vaccination rates in both seasons. The most profound disparities occurred when educational cohort were considered. The vaccination rate increased among college-educated enrollees by 8.8 percentage points (p < .001) during the pandemic compared to an increase of 2.8 percentage points (p < .001) for enrollees with less than a 12th grade education. Past influenza infections or vaccination increased the likelihood of vaccination (p < .001).

Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased influenza vaccine utilization. Disparities persisted but narrowed with respect to gender and race but worsened with respect to income and educational attainment.