Search

Missed primary care appointments occur frequently among urban, low-income patients-some of the costliest and sickest patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 43 patients who reside in West Philadelphia (100% insured by Medicaid, 95% were non-Hispanic African Americans, and 47.1 years old on average) to identify why recent primary care appointments were or might have been missed. Existing transportation options, including public transportation, were considered unreliable and alternative options too costly. In addition, we discovered poor health, family obligations, and work requirements prevented appointment attendance. Intervening on the barriers identified may reduce missed appointment rates among disadvantaged populations.

Objectives: Adequate access to primary and dental care is essential for population health, and some state Medicaid programs have expanded insurance coverage for both. However, there are few data on new Medicaid enrollees' ability to access services. We examined the relationship between provider supply and enrollees' identification of usual sources of care., Study Design: Between November 2015 and February 2016, we surveyed low-income adults newly insured through Medicaid in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to determine if they had a usual source of care. Additionally, we used geospatial methods to calculate adult population per provider ratios by Census tract for primary and dental care providers who accepted Medicaid patients, then identified low-supply clusters., Methods: We used multivariable logistic regression models to describe the odds of identifying usual sources of care based on being in low- or high-supply clusters, adjusting for patient demographics., Results: Of 1000 contacted individuals, 312 completed the survey. Among respondents, 168 were previously uninsured and newly enrolled in Medicaid; 66.7% of this group identified a usual primary care provider and 42.3% identified a usual dental care provider. In adjusted analyses, individuals living in low- and high-supply areas had similar likelihoods of identifying a usual source of primary or dental care., Conclusions: Many new Medicaid enrollees did not have usual sources of primary or dental care, regardless of nearby provider supply. Efforts to understand what improves access or engagement in healthcare among Medicaid enrollees are critical after low-income adults gain insurance.

Importance: Addressing the social determinants of health has been difficult for health systems to operationalize., Objective: To assess a standardized intervention, Individualized Management for Patient-Centered Targets (IMPaCT), delivered by community health workers (CHWs) across 3 health systems., Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-armed, single-blind, multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited patients from 3 primary care facilities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between January 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016. Patients who resided in a high-poverty zip code, were uninsured or publicly insured, and who had a diagnosis for 2 or more chronic diseases were recruited, and patients were randomized to either the CHW intervention or the control arm (goal setting only). Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 and 9 months after enrollment. Data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach from June 2017 to March 2018., Intervention: Participants set a chronic disease management goal with their primary care physician; those randomized to the CHW intervention received 6 months of tailored support., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in self-rated physical health. The secondary outcomes were self-rated mental health, chronic disease control, patient activation, patient-reported quality of primary care, and all-cause hospitalization., Results: Of the 592 participants, 370 (62.5%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 52.6 (11.1) years. Participants in both arms had similar improvements in self-rated physical health (mean [SD], 1.8 [11.2] vs 1.6 [9.9]; P = .89). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to report the highest quality of care (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; risk difference [RD], 0.12; P < .001) and spent fewer total days in the hospital at 6 months (155 days vs 345 days; absolute event rate reduction, 69%) and 9 months (300 days vs 471 days; absolute event rate reduction, 65%). This reduction was driven by a shorter average length of stay (difference, -3.1 days; 95% CI, -6.33 to 0.22; P = .06) and a lower mean number of hospitalizations (difference, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.0; P = .07) among patients who were hospitalized. Patients in the intervention group had a lower odds of repeat hospitalizations (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; RD, -0.24; P = .02), including 30-day readmissions (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; RD, -0.17; P = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: A standardized intervention did not improve self-rated health but did improve the patient-perceived quality of care while reducing hospitalizations, suggesting that health systems may use a standardized intervention to address the social determinants of health., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02347787.

Background: Transportation to primary care is a well-documented barrier for patients with Medicaid, despite access to non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefits. Rideshare services, which offer greater convenience and lower cost, have been proposed as an NEMT alternative., Objective: To evaluate the impact of rideshare-based medical transportation on the proportion of Medicaid patients attending scheduled primary care appointments., Design: In one of two similar practices, all eligible Medicaid patients were offered rideshare-based transportation ("rideshare practice"). A difference-in-difference analytical approach using logistic regression with robust standard errors was employed to compare show rate changes between the rideshare practice and the practice where rideshare was not offered ("control practice")., Participants: Our study population included residents of West Philadelphia who were insured by Medicaid and were established patients at two academic general internal medicine practices located in the same building., Intervention: We designed a rideshare-based transportation pilot intervention. Patients were offered the service during their reminder call 2 days before the appointment, and rides were prescheduled by research staff. Patients then called research staff to schedule their return trip home., Main Measures: We assessed the effect of offering rideshare-based transportation on appointment show rates by comparing the change in the average show rate for the rideshare practice, from the baseline period to the intervention period, with the change at the control practice., Key Results: At the control practice, the show rate declined from 60% (146/245) to 51% (34/67). At the rideshare practice, the show rate improved from 54% (72/134) to 68% (41/60). In the adjusted model, controlling for patient demographics and provider type, the odds of showing up for an appointment before and after the intervention increased 2.57 (1.10-6.00) times more in the rideshare practice than in the control practice., Conclusions: Results of this pilot program suggest that offering a rideshare-based transportation service can increase show rates to primary care for Medicaid patients.

Importance: Transportation barriers contribute to missed primary care appointments for patients with Medicaid. Rideshare services have been proposed as alternatives to nonemergency medical transportation programs because of convenience and lower costs., Objective: To evaluate the association between rideshare-based medical transportation and missed primary care appointments among Medicaid patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: In a prospective clinical trial, 786 Medicaid beneficiaries who resided in West Philadelphia and were established primary care patients at 1 of 2 academic internal medicine practices located within the same building were included. Participants were allocated to being offered complimentary ride-sharing services (intervention arm) or usual care (control arm) based on the prescheduled day of their primary care appointment reminder. Those scheduled on even-numbered weekdays were in the intervention arm and on odd-numbered weekdays, the control arm. The primary study outcome was the rate of missed appointments, estimated using an intent-to-treat approach. All individuals receiving a phone call reminder were included in the study sample, regardless of whether they answered their phone. The study was conducted between October 24, 2016, and April 20, 2017., Interventions: A model of providing rideshare-based transportation was designed. As part of usual care, patients assigned to both arms received automated appointment phone call reminders. As part of the study protocol, patients assigned to both arms received up to 3 additional appointment reminder phone calls from research staff 2 days before their scheduled appointment. During these calls, patients in the intervention arm were offered a complimentary ridesharing service. Research staff prescheduled rides for those interested in the service. After their appointment, patients phoned research staff to initiate a return trip home., Main Outcomes and Measures: Missed appointment rate (no shows and same-day cancellations) in the intervention compared with control arm., Results: Of the 786 patients allocated to the intervention or control arm, 566 (72.0%) were women; mean (SD) age was 46.0. (12.5) years. Within the intervention arm, 85 among 288 (26.0%) participants who answered the phone call used ridesharing. The missed appointment rate was 36.5% (144 of 394) for the intervention arm and 36.7% (144 of 392) for the control arm (P = .96)., Conclusions and Relevance: The uptake of ridesharing was low and did not decrease missed primary care appointments. Future studies trying to reduce missed appointments should explore alternative delivery models or targeting populations with stronger transportation needs., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02955433.

Background: Millions of adults have gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, disparities in access to care persist., Objective: This study examined differences in access to primary and specialty care among patients insured by private individual market insurance plans (both on-exchange and off-exchange) and Medicaid compared with those with employer-sponsored insurance., Research Design: Using data from the 2014 and 2015 California Health Interview Survey, logistic regression analyses were used to calculate the odds of being unable to access primary care providers, access specialty care providers and receive a needed doctor's appointment in a timely manner, with insurance type serving as the independent variable. Interaction terms examined if the expiration of the ACA's optional Medicaid primary care fee increase in 2014 modified any of these associations., Results: Findings showed poorer access to providers among those insured through Medicaid and the individual market (whether purchased through the state's health insurance exchange or off-exchange) relative to employer-based insurance. Poor access to primary care providers was seen among private coverage purchased via exchanges, relative to private coverage purchased on the individual market. In addition, findings showed that reduction of Medicaid fees coincided with reduced ability to see primary care providers. However, a similar trend was seen among those with employer-based coverage, which suggests that this change may not be attributable to reductions in Medicaid fees., Conclusion: Despite ACA-related gains in insurance coverage, those with on-exchange and off-exchange individual private insurance plans and Medicaid encounter more barriers to care than those with employer-based insurance.

Background: Postdischarge follow-up visits (PDFVs) are widely recommended to improve inpatient-outpatient transitions of care., Objective: To measure PDFV attendance rates., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Medical units at an academic quaternary-care hospital and its affiliated outpatient clinics., Patients: Adult patients hospitalized between April 2014 and March 2015 for whom at least 1 PDFV with our health system was scheduled. Exclusion criteria included nonprovider visits, visits cancelled before discharge, nonaccepted health insurance, and visits scheduled for deceased patients., Measurements: The study outcome was the incidence of PDFVs resulting in no-shows or same-day cancellations (NS/SDCs)., Results: Of all hospitalizations, 6136 (52%) with 9258 PDFVs were analyzed. Twenty-five percent of PDFVs were NS/SDCs, 23% were cancelled before the visit, and 52% were attended as scheduled. In multivariable regression models, NS/SDC risk factors included black race (odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-2.32), longer lengths of stay (hospitalizations ≥15 days: OR 1.51, 95% CI, 1.22- 1.88), and discharge to facility (OR 2.10, 95% CI, 1.70-2.60). Conversely, NS/SDC visits were less likely with advancing age (age ≥65 years: OR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.31-0.49) and driving distance (highest quartile: OR 0.65, 95% CI, 0.52-0.81). Primary care visits had higher NS/SDC rates (OR 2.62, 95% CI, 2.03-3.38) than oncologic visits. The time interval between discharge and PDFV was not associated with NS/SDC rates., Conclusions: PDFVs were scheduled for more than half of hospitalizations, but 25% resulted in NS/SDCs. New strategies are needed to improve PDFV attendance.

Introduction: Racial minorities are more likely to live in primary care shortage areas. We sought to understand community health centers' (CHCs) role in reducing disparities., Methods: We surveyed all primary care practices in an urban area, identified low access areas, and examined how CHCs influence spatial accessibility., Results: Census tracts with higher rates of public insurance (≥40% vs <10%, odds ratio [OR] = 31.06, P < .001; 30-39% vs 10%, OR = 7.84, P = 0.001) were more likely to be near a CHC and those with moderate rates of uninsurance (10%-19% vs <10%, OR = 0.42, P = .045) were less likely. Racial composition was not associated with proximity. Tracts close to a CHC were less likely (OR = 0.11, P < .0001) to be in a low access area. This association did not differ based on racial composition., Discussion: Although CHCs were more likely to be in areas with a greater fraction of racial minorities, location was more strongly influenced by public insurance rates. CHCs reduced the likelihood of being in low access areas but the effect did not vary by tract racial composition.

Background: The role of primary care providers (PCPs) in decision making around cancer care remains largely unknown. We evaluated how frequently men with localized prostate cancer report receiving help from their PCP about their treatment, and whether those men who do are less likely to receive definitive treatment., Methods: We mailed surveys to men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014 in the greater Philadelphia region. Participants were asked whether their PCP helped decide how to treat their cancer. The outcome was receipt of definitive treatment (either radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy)., Results: A total of 2386 men responded (adjusted response rate, 51.1%). Among these men, 38.2% reported receiving help from their PCP regarding choosing a treatment, and 79.6% received definitive treatment. In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic black men (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.27) were more likely than non-Hispanic white men to report receiving help from their PCP. However, men who did receive help were not more likely to forgo definitive treatment overall ( P = .58) or in the subgroups of men who may be least likely to benefit from definitive treatment., Conclusions: Though a substantial proportion of men reported receiving help from their PCP about prostate cancer treatment, these discussions were not associated with different treatment patterns. Further effort is needed to determine how to optimize the role of PCPs in supporting patients to make preference-sensitive cancer decisions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Objective: The specific specialist that a patient sees can have a large influence on the type of care they receive., Methods: We administered semistructured interviews with 47 men diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2014. Telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a systematic thematic approach., Results: Three profiles of patients emerged for choosing specialists: active (21.3%), partially active (53.2%), and passive (25.5%). Active patients conducted substantial research when choosing a diagnosing urologist and a treating specialist: they searched online, consulted other men with prostate cancer, and/or visited multiple specialists for opinions. Partially active patients took only 1 additional step to find a treating specialist on their own after receiving a referral from their diagnosing urologist. Passive patients relied exclusively on referrals from their primary care physicians (PCPs) and diagnosing urologists., Conclusion: The majority of patients relied on their PCPs for referrals to diagnosing urologists and on their diagnosing urologists to choose the treating specialist. Given these findings and the significance of specialist choice in determining treatment, it is important that PCPs recognize their indirect but potentially important effect on treatment choice when making referrals for prostate cancer. PCPs should consider counseling patients about seeking second opinions from providers with different treatment perspectives and participating in treatment decisions., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Primary care is often thought of as the gateway to improved health outcomes and can lead to more efficient use of health care resources. Because of primary care's cardinal importance, adequate access is an important health policy priority. In densely populated urban areas, spatial access to primary care providers across neighborhoods is poorly understood. We examined spatial variation in primary care access in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We calculated ratios of adults per primary care provider for each census tract and included buffer zones based on prespecified drive times around each tract. We found that the average ratio was 1,073; the supply of primary care providers varied widely across census tracts, ranging from 105 to 10,321. We identified six areas of Philadelphia that have much lower spatial accessibility to primary care relative to the rest of the city. After adjustment for sociodemographic and insurance characteristics, the odds of being in a low-access area were twenty-eight times greater for census tracts with a high proportion of African Americans than in tracts with a low proportion of African Americans., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Background: As primary care moves toward a system of population health management, providers will need to engage patients outside traditional office-based interactions., Objective: We assessed patient attitudes regarding technology use to communicate with their primary care team or to engage with other patients outside typical office settings. Design/Participants/Main Measures We conducted a national survey using GfK KnowledgePanel(®) to examine attitudes on the use of digital technology (email, text messaging, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter) to communicate with primary care teams about health behavior goals and test results. We also assessed attitudes toward the use of digital technologies to engage with other patients in activities such as peer coaching., Key Results: Of the 5119 panel members invited to participate, 3336 completed the survey (response rate, 65.2 %). Among respondents, more than half (58 %) reported using Facebook, and nearly two-thirds (64.1 %) used text messaging. Overall, few participants were willing to communicate about health goals via social media (3.1 %) or text messaging (13.3 %), compared to email (48.8 %) or phone (75.5 %) (results were similar for communication about test results). Among those that used text messaging, race/ethnicity was the only factor independently associated with greater support for text messaging [African American (OR 1.44; 95 % CI, 1.01-2.06) and Hispanic (OR 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.25-2.59)] in multivariate models. Participants interested in engaging in peer coaching through Facebook (11.7 %) were more likely to be younger (p < 0.0001), female (p < 0.001), and a racial/ethnic minority (African American, non-Hispanic or Hispanic, p < 0.0004)., Conclusions: Despite regular use of new digital technology such as text messaging and social media, few participants supported using these tools for communicating with their physicians' practice. Participants were most supportive of using email for communication. Contrary to previous studies, among users of technology, low socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities were equally or more likely to support use.

To explore perceptions of high-risk patients and their practice staff on the patient-centered medical home, we conducted a multisite qualitative study with chronically ill, low-income patients and their primary care practice staff (N = 51). There were 3 key findings. Both patients and staff described a trade-off: timely care from an unfamiliar provider versus delayed access to their personal physician. Staff were enthusiastic about enhancing access through strategies such as online communication, yet high-risk patients viewed these as access barriers. Practices lacked capacity to manage high-risk patients and therefore frequently referred them to the emergency room.

Background: As primary care moves toward a system of population health management, providers will need to engage patients outside traditional office-based interactions.Objective: We assessed patient attitudes regarding technology use to communicate with their primary care team or to engage with other patients outside typical office settings. Design/Participants/Main Measures We conducted a national survey using GfK KnowledgePanel(®) to examine attitudes on the use of digital technology (email, text messaging, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter) to communicate with primary care teams about health behavior goals and test results. We also assessed attitudes toward the use of digital technologies to engage with other patients in activities such as peer coaching.Key Results: Of the 5119 panel members invited to participate, 3336 completed the survey (response rate, 65.2 %). Among respondents, more than half (58 %) reported using Facebook, and nearly two-thirds (64.1 %) used text messaging. Overall, few participants were willing to communicate about health goals via social media (3.1 %) or text messaging (13.3 %), compared to email (48.8 %) or phone (75.5 %) (results were similar for communication about test results). Among those that used text messaging, race/ethnicity was the only factor independently associated with greater support for text messaging [African American (OR 1.44; 95 % CI, 1.01-2.06) and Hispanic (OR 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.25-2.59)] in multivariate models. Participants interested in engaging in peer coaching through Facebook (11.7 %) were more likely to be younger (p < 0.0001), female (p < 0.001), and a racial/ethnic minority (African American, non-Hispanic or Hispanic, p < 0.0004).Conclusions: Despite regular use of new digital technology such as text messaging and social media, few participants supported using these tools for communicating with their physicians' practice. Participants were most supportive of using email for communication. Contrary to previous studies, among users of technology, low socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities were equally or more likely to support use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]