Community Health Centers and racial/ethnic disparities in healthy life

Healthcare on the brink: navigating the challenges of an aging society in the United States

The US healthcare system is at a crossroads. With an aging population requiring more care and a strained system facing workforce shortages, capacity issues, and fragmentation, innovative solutions and policy reforms are needed. This paper aims to spark dialogue and collaboration among healthcare stakeholders and inspire action to meet the needs of the aging population. Through a comprehensive analysis of the impact of an aging society, this work highlights the urgency of addressing this issue and the importance of restructuring the healthcare system to be more efficient, equitable, and responsive.

Spatial variation in access to the health care safety net for Hispanic immigrants, 1970-2017

Hispanic immigrants have long faced barriers to accessing health care in the U.S., as they are largely excluded from federal programs like Medicaid. Since the 1960s, the federal government has operated a nationwide network of Community Health Centers (CHCs) that serve anyone, regardless of ability to pay or citizenship status. To what extent has this widespread, immigrant-inclusive institution been accessible to Hispanic immigrants? Using novel administrative data joined with Census and American Community Survey data from 1970 to 2017, this study documents spatial variation in population-level proximity to CHCs in relation to changing Hispanic migration patterns. Findings show that health centers, both historically and contemporarily, have been far more spatially proximate to poor and foreign-born Hispanics than to poor whites. In 2017, 56% of poor and foreign-born Hispanics in the U.S. lived within two miles of a CHC compared to 30% of poor whites. While access to CHCs has been consistently greater in established gateways, regardless of urbanicity, growth in new destination safety net infrastructure has increased at a faster rate. The CHC program has been substantially more accessible to the foreign-born than U.S.-born Hispanic and uninsured populations, showing the geographic potential for CHCs to provide care to underserved immigrant communities. This study provides the first descriptive evidence of the programmatic reach of this safety net institution across time and space, highlighting a crucial yet underexplored factor in understanding the health of Hispanic immigrants.

Clinical quality performance in U.S. health centers

OBJECTIVE

To describe current clinical quality among the nation's community health centers and to examine health center characteristics associated with performance excellence.

DATA SOURCES

National data from the 2009 Uniform Data System.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Health centers reviewed patient records and reported aggregate data to the Uniform Data System.

STUDY DESIGN

Six measures were examined: first-trimester prenatal care, childhood immunization completion, Pap tests, low birth weight, controlled hypertension, and controlled diabetes. The top 25 percent performing centers were compared with lower performing (bottom 75 percent) centers on these measures. Logistic regressions were utilized to assess the impact of patient, provider, and institutional characteristics on health center performance.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Clinical care and outcomes among health centers were generally comparable to national averages. For instance, 67 percent of pregnant patients received timely prenatal care (national = 68 percent), 69 percent of children achieved immunization completion (national = 67 percent), and 63 percent of hypertensive patients had blood pressure under control (national = 48 percent). Depending on the measure, centers with more uninsured patients were less likely to do well, while centers with more physicians and enabling service providers were more likely to do well.

CONCLUSIONS

Health centers provide quality care at rates comparable to national averages. Performance may be improved by increasing insurance coverage among patients and increasing the ratios of physicians and enabling service providers to patients.

The impact of primary care: a focused review

Primary care serves as the cornerstone in a strong healthcare system. However, it has long been overlooked in the United States (USA), and an imbalance between specialty and primary care exists. The objective of this focused review paper is to identify research evidence on the value of primary care both in the USA and internationally, focusing on the importance of effective primary care services in delivering quality healthcare, improving health outcomes, and reducing disparities. Literature searches were performed in PubMed as well as "snowballing" based on the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. The areas reviewed included primary care definitions, primary care measurement, primary care practice, primary care and health, primary care and quality, primary care and cost, primary care and equity, primary care and health centers, and primary care and healthcare reform. In both developed and developing countries, primary care has been demonstrated to be associated with enhanced access to healthcare services, better health outcomes, and a decrease in hospitalization and use of emergency department visits. Primary care can also help counteract the negative impact of poor economic conditions on health.

Does health care setting matter in reports of discrimination?

We investigated the associations between the health care setting types that California adults report as their regular source of care, socioeconomic status, and perceived racial/ethnic medical care-related discrimination. Data were analyzed from the 2005 California Health Interview Survey (n = 36,694). Adults who identified clinics/health centers/hospital clinics or "other settings" as their usual source of health care had increased odds for perceived racial/ethnic discrimination compared with those who utilized private and health maintenance organizations doctors' offices, although this was true only for middle, but not lower or higher, socio-economic respondents. We suggest several explanations for these findings and improvements for assessing health care-based racial discrimination.

An update on assessing development in the pediatric office: has anything changed after two policy statements?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine parental reports of receiving a child developmental assessment (DA), and the child, family, and type of health care setting characteristics and well-child care processes associated with receiving this aspect of preventive developmental care.

METHODS

The 2007 National Survey of Children's Health was used to study 16 223 children, aged 10 months to 4 years, who received a DA with a structured questionnaire from their primary care provider in the previous 12 months. Data were adjusted for child characteristics, family socioeconomic factors, type of health care setting, and processes of care.

RESULTS

Few children were assessed for developmental delays by using developmental questionnaires (28%). A greater percentage of parents of children with public insurance reported receiving a developmental questionnaire compared with parents of children who were uninsured or privately insured (32% vs 26% and 25%, respectively; P = .02). The adjusted odds of receiving a developmental questionnaire were higher for children with public insurance than private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.73), higher for children whose usual place of care was a clinic or health center than a doctor's office (OR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.07-1.74), and higher for children reporting adequate family-centered care (OR 1.41, 95% CI, 1.14-1.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Parental receipt of developmental questionnaires is low and varies by type of insurance, type of place for usual source of care, and adequacy of family-centered care. There is room for improvement in the provision of developmental questionnaires and, our results suggest, areas for continuing research to understand variations in DA practices.

Assessing the impact of the Health Center Growth Initiative on health center patients

OBJECTIVES

In 2001, the Health Center Growth Initiative was launched to increase access to primary health-care services through the expansion of the health center program. We examined the impact this initiative had on the number and types of patients seen by health centers, as well as the health center characteristics significantly associated with service expansions.

METHODS

We conducted secondary and time-trend analyses of the Uniform Data System, an annual dataset submitted to the Bureau of Primary Health Care by all federally qualified health centers. We performed trend and multivariable analyses to examine the impact of the initiative on health center performance.

RESULTS

Health centers that received both new access points and expanded medical capacity funding saw the most rapid growth in patients. These centers experienced a 58% increase in total number of patients and a 60% increase in total number of encounters, compared with 10% and 8%, respectively, for centers receiving no funding at all.

CONCLUSIONS

were unchanged even after controlling for other health center characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Public funding is critical to sustaining and expanding health center services to the nation's vulnerable populations.

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to care and quality of care for US health center patients compared with non-health center patients

This study aims to compare racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to care and quality of care for US health center patients and non-health center patients. Data for the study came from the 2002 Community Health Center User Survey and the 2003 National Healthcare Disparities Report. Descriptive analysis was performed using nationally representative survey data pertaining to access to care and quality of care for people of different races, ethnicities, incomes, and education levels. Results of the study show that health center patients experience fewer racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to care and quality of care, compared with non-health center patients nationally. Racial/ethnic disparities favoring whites occur in non-health center patients in every measure of quality and access included in this study. Conversely, there are few disparities favoring whites among health center users. Education and income-related disparities occur for several measures of access and quality in both health center and non-health center patients; however, the magnitude of these disparities is usually greater among non-health center patients compared with health center patients. In conclusion, health centers have been touted for cost-efficient, high-quality care. This study adds to growing evidence that health centers may also help eliminate racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in access to care and quality of care.

The role of community health centers in delivering primary care to the underserved: experiences of the uninsured and Medicaid insured

Community health centers (CHCs) have long served an important safety-net healthcare delivery role for vulnerable populations. Federal efforts to expand CHCs, while potentially reducing the Federal budget for Medicaid, raise concern about how Medicaid and uninsured patients of CHCs will continue to fare. To examine the primary care experiences of uninsured and Medicaid CHC patients and compare their experiences with those of similar patients nationally, cross-sectional analyses of the 2002 CHC User Survey with comparison data from the 1998 and 2002 National Health Interview surveys were done. Self-reported measures of primary care access, longitudinality, and comprehensiveness of care among adults aged 18 to 64 years were used. Despite poorer health, CHCs were positively associated with better primary care experiences in comparison with similar patients nationally. Uninsured CHC patients were more likely than similar patients nationally to report a generalist physician visit in the past year (82% vs 68%, P < .001), having a regular source of care (96% vs 60%, P < .001), receiving a mammogram in the past 2 years (69% vs 49%, P < .001), and receiving counseling on exercise (68% vs 48%, P < .001). Similar results were found for CHC Medicaid patients versus Medicaid patients nationally. Even within CHCs, however, Medicaid patients tended to report better primary care experiences than the uninsured. Health centers appear to fill an important gap in primary care for Medicaid and uninsured patients. Nonetheless, this study suggests that Medicaid insurance remains fundamental to accessing high-quality primary care, even within CHCs.

Access to care for U.S. health center patients and patients nationally: how do the most vulnerable populations fare?

This study examined access to care for uninsured and Medicaid-insured community health center patients in comparison to nonhealth center patients nationally. Using nationally representative data from 2 major surveys in 2002, there was a positive association between seeking care in community health centers and self-reported access to care for both uninsured and Medicaid patients. This suggests that health centers may fill a critical gap in access to care for patients who use their services. Given recent budget cuts to the Medicaid program, health centers remain an important policy option to assure access to care for vulnerable populations.

Lung cancer disparities in African Americans: health versus health care

African Americans with lung cancer have disproportionately worse outcomes than other ethnic groups. The incidence of lung cancer in blacks has remained well above the rates seen for the general population and the 5-year and overall survival rates for blacks with lung cancer are among the lowest of all racial groups. Many studies have focused on socioeconomic status of African Americans as the sole cause of these disparities. Other stu-dies, however, have identified additional factors related to risks for poor outcomes in blacks with lung cancer. This article reviews data on these risks and their relationships to the health and health care of African Americans with lung cancer.

Deserving the spotlight: health centers provide high-quality and cost-effective care

Community health centers were designed to overcome barriers to healthcare and narrow health disparities faced by underserved communities. Given the increased attention health centers are now receiving over expansion efforts, questions over their quality of care and cost-effectiveness must be addressed. This article reviews the relevant literature and documents that health centers improve access for hard-to-reach and underserved populations, provide continuous and high-quality primary care, and reduce the use of costlier providers of care, such as emergency departments and hospitals. The health center model produces substantial benefits for patients, communities, insurers, and governments.

High prevalence of overweight among pediatric users of community health centers

OBJECTIVE

With the increasing prevalence of pediatric obesity, it is important to identify high-risk populations of children to direct limited resources for prevention and treatment to those who are most vulnerable. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of overweight in children who are clients of community health centers in medically underserved areas of the Health Resources and Service Administration regions II and III (Mid-Atlantic and Puerto Rico), compare this prevalence to nationally representative data, and contrast prevalence data between geographic areas and racial/ethnic groups.

METHODS

The charts from a representative sample of 2474 children using 30 community health centers in 2001 were abstracted to collect clinically measured weight and height. Overweight was defined as a body mass index of > or =95th percentile of a reference population. To generate an unbiased estimate of overweight, multiple imputations were used for missing data. These data were compared with the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

RESULTS

The prevalence of overweight was elevated in this sample of children aged 2 to 5 years (21.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.1-24.8) and 6 to 11 years (23.8%; 95% CI: 16.9-27.7) compared with the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (10.3% and 15.8%, respectively). No significant differences in prevalence were observed between Asian American (18.2%; 95% CI: 11.2-28.3), Hispanic (24.6%; 95% CI: 21.3-28.2), non-Hispanic black (25.6%; 95% CI: 20.8-30.9), and non-Hispanic white (22.8%; 95% CI: 19.0-27.0) children. Furthermore, no differences in prevalence were observed between children using community health centers in continental urban (23.7%; 95% CI: 20.6-27.2), suburban (24.0%; 95% CI: 20.0-28.5), or rural (22.9%; 95% CI: 19.3-26.9) areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study identified a population of children at particularly high risk for obesity based on the type of health care delivery system they use regardless of race/ethnicity or geographic characteristics. Because community health centers are experienced in prevention and serve >4.7 million children in the United States, they may be a particularly promising point of access and setting for pediatric obesity prevention.

Primary care, social inequalities, and all-cause, heart disease, and cancer mortality in US counties, 1990

OBJECTIVES

We tested the association between the availability of primary care and income inequality on several categories of mortality in US counties.

METHODS

We used cross-sectional analysis of data from counties (n=3081) in 1990, including analysis of variance and multivariate ordinary least squares regression. Independent variables included primary care resources, income inequality, and sociodemographics.

RESULTS

Counties with higher availability of primary care resources experienced between 2% and 3% lower mortality than counties with less primary care. Counties with high income inequality experienced between 11% and 13% higher mortality than counties with less inequality.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care resources may partially moderate the effects of income inequality on health outcomes at the county level.

America's Health Centers: reducing racial and ethnic disparities in perinatal care and birth outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether community health centers (CHCs) reduce racial/ethnic disparities in perinatal care and birth outcomes, and to identify CHC characteristics associated with better outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Despite great national wealth, the U.S. continues to rank poorly relative to other industrialized nations on infant mortality and other birth outcomes, and with wide inequities by race/ethnicity. Disparities in primary care (including perinatal care) may contribute to disparities in birth outcomes, which may be addressed by CHCs that provide safety-net medical services to vulnerable populations.

METHODS

Data are from annual Uniform Data System reports submitted to the Bureau of Primary Health Care over six years (1996-2001) by about 700 CHCs each year.

RESULTS

Across all years, about 60% of CHC mothers received first-trimester prenatal care and more than 70% received postpartum and newborn care. In 2001, Asian mothers were the most likely to receive both postpartum and newborn care (81.7% and 80.3%), followed by Hispanics (75.0% and 76.3%), blacks (70.8% and 69.9%), and whites (70.7% and 66.7%). In 2001, blacks had higher rates of low birth weight (LBW) babies (10.4%), but the disparity in rates for blacks and whites was smaller in CHCs (3.3 percentage points) compared to national disparities for low-socioeconomic status mothers (5.8 percentage points) and the total population (6.2 percentage points). In CHCs, greater perinatal care capacity was associated with higher rates of first-trimester prenatal care, which was associated with a lower LBW rate.

CONCLUSION

Racial/ethnic disparities in certain prenatal services and birth outcomes may be lower in CHCs compared to the general population, despite serving higher-risk groups. Within CHCs, increasing first-trimester prenatal care use through perinatal care capacity may lead to further improvement in birth outcomes for the underserved.

Disparities in access to care among rural working-age adults

CONTEXT

Nationally, minority population disparities in health and in the receipt of health services are well documented but are infrequently examined within rural populations.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to provide a national picture of health insurance coverage and access to care among rural minorities.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis using the 1999-2000 National Health Interview Surveys examined insurance status and receipt of ambulatory care during the past year. Multiple logistic regression was used to measure factors influencing the odds of insurance coverage and a provider visit.

FINDINGS

Among rural minority adults, 32% of blacks, 35% of "other" race persons, and 45% of Hispanics were uninsured compared to 18% of whites. Differences in insurance status were not significant for rural blacks and Hispanics after resources such as education, income, and employment were held constant. Examining use, 37% of rural Hispanics and 27% of blacks, versus 20% of whites and 19% of persons of other race, had not made a health care visit in the past year. When resources were held constant, blacks and persons of other race/ethnicity no longer differed from whites, but differences among Hispanics persisted.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive approach to the health needs of rural working age adults must consider the unique characteristics of rural communities and populations, requiring cultural as well as financial creativity in the design of health delivery systems. The importance of resources such as education and employment points to the need to link health problems to area-specific rural economic development.

Promoting equity in health through research and understanding

Developing strategies to reduce inequities in health requires an understanding of how inequities occur, determining the salient factors in their production, and deciding which ones are most amenable to change. The recognition of several principles regarding the manifestations and genesis of inequities can help to decide on strategies. In making decisions, it is important to consider whether the aim is to reduce disparities in the occurrence of ill health or to reduce disparities in the severity (including co-morbidity, disability, dysfunction and fatality) of ill health. Evidence shows that the major impact on equity of health services, particularly regarding their potential to reduce severity, is attributable to the strength of primary care resources and services in communities and countries. Virtually every influence on the genesis of inequities is determined by the political context in which policy is made. The issue of health services is not different in this regard from other types of strategies. There is no longer any doubt about the pervasive influence of social factors on health. Almost two centuries of descriptive research provides convincing evidence of associations between social structures and relationships and health status in all countries and in all societies; if there is anything new from more recent research, it is that the association is not limited to differences between the lowest social strata and other social strata. Rather, the association is noted throughout the social spectrum. That is, there is a social gradient in health such that, for many if not most manifestations of ill health, the lower the social stratum, the worse the health. The challenge for the future is to understand why this is the case, to create a consensus that these inequalities are unnecessary and unacceptable, and to devise strategies that are both effective and possible. This paper will focus on the first of these aims, in a context that facilitates attention to the second and third aims.