Search

Objective: To evaluate whether the expansion of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) improved late prenatal care initiation, low birth weight, and preterm birth among Medicaid‐covered or uninsured individuals. Data Sources and Study Setting: We identified all FQHCs in California using the Health Resources and Services Administration's Uniform Data System from 2000 to 2019. We used data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey to describe area characteristics. We measured outcomes in California birth certificate data from 2007 to 2019. Study Design: We compared areas that received their first FQHC between 2011 and 2016 to areas that received it later or that had never had an FQHC. Specifically, we used a synthetic control with a staggered adoption approach to calculate non‐parametric estimates of the average treatment effects on the treated areas. The key outcome variables were the rate of Medicaid or uninsured births with late prenatal care initiation (>3 months' gestation), with low birth weight (<2500 grams), or with preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation). Data Collection/Extraction Methods: The analysis was limited to births covered by Medicaid or that were uninsured, as indicated on the birth certificate. Principal Findings: The 55 areas in California that received their first FQHC in 2011–2016 were more populous; their residents were more likely to be covered by Medicaid, to be low‐income, or to be Hispanic than residents of the 48 areas that did not have an FQHC by the end of the study period. We found no statistically significant impact of the first FQHC on rates of late prenatal care initiation (ATT: −10.4 [95% CI −38.1, 15.0]), low birth weight (ATT: 0.2 [95% CI −7.1, 5.4]), or preterm birth (ATT: −7.0 [95% CI −15.5, 2.3]). Conclusions: Our results from California suggest that access to primary and prenatal care may not be enough to improve these outcomes. Future work should evaluate the impact of ongoing initiatives to increase access to maternal health care at FQHCs through targeted workforce investments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insurers, employers, and states increasingly encourage price transparency so that patients can compare health care prices across providers. However, the evidence on whether price transparency tools encourage patients to receive lower-cost care and reduce overall spending remains limited and mixed. We examined the experience of a large insured population that was offered a price transparency tool, focusing on a set of "shoppable" services (lab tests, office visits, and advanced imaging services). Overall, offering the tool was not associated with lower shoppable services spending. Only 12 percent of employees who were offered the tool used it in the first fifteen months after it was introduced, and use of the tool was not associated with lower prices for lab tests or office visits. The average price paid for imaging services preceded by a price search was 14 percent lower than that paid for imaging services not preceded by a price search. However, only 1 percent of those who received advanced imaging conducted a price search. Simply offering a price transparency tool is not sufficient to meaningfully decrease health care prices or spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]