0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Estimated Costs of Intervening in Health-Related Social Needs Detected in Primary Care

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Health-related social needs are increasingly being screened for in primary care practices, but it remains unclear how much additional financing is required to address those needs to improve health outcomes.

          Objective

          To estimate the cost of implementing evidence-based interventions to address social needs identified in primary care practices.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          A decision analytical microsimulation of patients seen in primary care practices, using data on social needs from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 through 2018 (N = 19 225) was conducted. Primary care practices were categorized as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas, non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas, and practices in lower-poverty areas. Data analysis was performed from March 3 to December 16, 2022.

          Intervention

          Simulated evidence-based interventions of primary care–based screening and referral protocols, food assistance, housing programs, nonemergency medical transportation, and community-based care coordination.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was per-person per-month cost of interventions. Intervention costs that have existing federally funded financing mechanisms (eg, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and costs without such an existing mechanism were tabulated.

          Results

          Of the population included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 34.4 (25.9) years, and 54.3% were female. Among people with food and housing needs, most were program eligible for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment (eg, due to inadequate program capacity), with 78.0% of people with housing needs being program eligible vs 24.0% enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs being program eligible vs 70.2% enrolled. Among those with transportation insecurity and care coordination needs, eligibility criteria limited enrollment (26.3% of those in need being program eligible for transportation programs, and 5.7% of those in need being program eligible for care coordination programs). The cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these 4 domains averaged $60 (95% CI, $55-$65) per member per month (including approximately $5 for screening and referral management in clinics), of which $27 (95% CI, $24-$31) (45.8%) was federally funded. While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps (intervention costs not borne by existing federal funding mechanisms).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this decision analytical microsimulation study, food and housing interventions were limited by low enrollment among eligible people, whereas transportation and care coordination interventions were more limited by narrow eligibility criteria. Screening and referral management in primary care was a small expenditure relative to the cost of interventions to address social needs, and just under half of the costs of interventions were covered by existing federal funding mechanisms. These findings suggest that many resources are necessary to address social needs that fall largely outside of existing federal financing mechanisms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Making Neighborhood-Disadvantage Metrics Accessible — The Neighborhood Atlas

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans.

              Homelessness and hunger are associated with poor health outcomes. Housing instability and food insecurity describe less severe problems securing housing and food. To determine the association between housing instability and food insecurity and access to ambulatory health care and rates of acute health care utilization. Secondary data analysis of the National Survey of American Families. 16,651 low-income adults. Self-reported measures of past-year access: (1) not having a usual source of care, (2) postponing needed medical care, or (3) postponing medication; and past-year utilization: (1) not having an ambulatory care visit, (2) having emergency department (ED) visits, or (3) inpatient hospitalization. 23.6% of subjects had housing instability and 42.7% had food insecurity. In multivariate logistic regression models, housing instability was independently associated with not having a usual source of care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.59), postponing needed medical care (AOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.31) and postponing medications (AOR 2.16, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.74), increased ED use (AOR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.70), and hospitalizations (AOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.67). Food insecurity was independently associated with postponing needed medical care (AOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.21) and postponing medications (AOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.85), increased ED use (AOR 1.39, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.66), and hospitalizations (AOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.85). Housing instability and food insecurity are associated with poor access to ambulatory care and high rates of acute care. These competing life demands may lead to delays in seeking care and predispose to acute care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                JAMA Intern Med
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6106
                August 01 2023
                August 01 2023
                : 183
                : 8
                : 762
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Product Development, Waymark Care, San Francisco, California
                [2 ]Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
                [3 ]Inova Health System, Fairfax, Virginia
                [4 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
                [5 ]Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
                [6 ]American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky
                [7 ]The Center for Professionalism & Value in Health Care, Washington, DC
                [8 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [9 ]Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1964
                37252714
                51406cdf-3321-4ce2-8ae1-f631ec0cc069
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article