Health Affairs, 24, no. 2 (2005): 465-472 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.2.465 © 2005 by Project HOPE	New Online   McAllen, TX & Beyond: An Expert Roundtable   Geography & Reform   Medicaid or Insurance Exchange?   Siren Song of New GME   Public Plan Option: Pro & Con

This Article Abstract Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by O’Malley, A. S. Articles by Shi, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by O’Malley, A. S. Articles by Shi, L. Related Collections Access To Care Health Reform Legal/Regulatory Issues Business Of Health Minority Health Safety-Net Systems Health Spending Politics Consumer Issues

Health Tracking

TRENDS

Health Center Trends, 1994–2001: What Do They Portend For The Federal Growth Initiative?

Abstract

 
The Federal Health Center Growth Initiative aims to increase community health centers’ (CHCs’) capacity by 60 percent from 2002 to 2006. This study investigates how primary care delivery changed and sustained its growth during 1994–2001. Findings reveal a rise in the number of patients and maintenance of their visit rate. People ages 41–64 accounted for the highest percentage of visits in 2001, and continuity of care improved. There were no disparities in visit-based preventive services delivery by race/ethnicity or insurance status. Continued growth under the initiative is likely to help reduce health disparities and improve care for the underserved.

Between 1994 and 2001, the Consolidated Health Center Program (which includes CHCs and health programs for migrant farm workers, homeless people, public housing residents, and school-based health centers) grew by 40 percent (from 7.3 to 10.3 million patients served).³ In 2002 the government launched the Federal Health Center Growth Initiative, which earmarked federal funds for a five-year expansion to serve 6.1 million additional patients (a 60 percent increase) in 1,200 communities.⁴ Specifically, the initiative calls for (1) expanding health centers by increasing the number of primary care access points, people served, and services provided within the network; (2) strengthening the health center safety net by increasing its clinical, managerial, and financial efficiency; (3) improving the quality of care for patients and families in the network; and (4) mobilizing the primary care network workforce by monitoring state planning efforts. Although the initiative applies to all health centers, this paper focuses specifically on CHCs, the largest of the component programs.

Nearly 90 percent of CHC patients have family incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, two-thirds are from minority groups, and 40 percent are uninsured.⁵ While serving these vulnerable populations, CHCs provide high-quality care, as evidenced by fewer hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits for ambulatory care–sensitive conditions among CHC patients compared with similar people living in the same areas who seek care elsewhere.⁶ CHCs also meet or exceed prevailing practices across other health care settings for otitis media, diabetes, asthma, and hypertension and for the delivery of evidence-based preventive services.⁷ Expanding CHCs therefore has the potential to improve access to high-quality care for some of the most vulnerable Americans.

Despite this major federal initiative to expand the primary care safety net, few data are available to inform its ongoing implementation. Which population groups are most likely to benefit from the expansions? Is the quality of care likely to suffer as CHC capacity increases? Is the expansion likely to moderate health care disparities, a core mission of the Health Center Program? This paper attempts to answer these questions.

Data And Methods

Top Data And Methods Study Results Discussion NOTES

 
Study data and methods. The BPHC sponsored two parallel surveys of nationally representative samples of visits to CHCs during 1994 and 2001. Chart abstraction occurred in 1995 for the 1994 visits and in 2002 for the 2001 visits. The two surveys’ methodologies were the same and were adapted from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.⁸ All CHCs that received BPHC Section 330 funding and provided primary care were included in the sampling frames.⁹ Temporary clinics, clinics open for less than one year, school-based health centers, and specialized clinics (other than primary care–linked obstetrics/gynecology, or OB/GYN, clinics) were not eligible. Nine strata were formed based on census region and urban/rural designation, and a tenth was formed for CHCs with large proportions of managed care patients. Selection was carried out with probability-proportional-to-size methodology within a stratum. Of 501 CHCs eligible in 1995, 48 (9.6 percent) were selected; of 581 eligible centers in 2002, 69 (11.9 percent) were selected.¹⁰

Eligible visits included those in which the patient saw a physician or a nonphysician clinician (for example, a nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or nurse midwife), or both. Data were obtained by medical record review. A random sample of 2,878 unduplicated patient encounters was selected from forty-eight CHCs (mean of sixty visits per center) for the 1994 survey. For the 2001 survey, a random sample of 3,028 unduplicated patient encounters was selected from among sixty-nine CHCs (mean of forty-four visits per center). The overall completion rate among eligible visits was 98 percent for the 1994 abstraction and 100 percent for the 2001 abstraction.¹¹

Data analysis. The main analytic goal was to compare and contrast primary care visits occurring in 1994 and 2001. Sampling weights and statistical procedures that accounted for the multistage sample design, the probability of selection, and nonresponse were used to obtain national estimates.¹²

Diagnostic data recorded for each visit were analyzed using the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) case-mix system.¹³ This system includes a validated methodology for categorizing all visit diagnostic codes as a chronic condition, defined as a health problem that is expected to last twelve months or longer.¹⁴

Population visit rates were expressed as visits per 100 Americans. The numerators were the weighted national estimates of visits from the survey data; the population denominators were obtained from U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the respective midyear civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population.¹⁵

We obtained the number of patients seen at CHCs and eligible for the surveys from the Uniform Data System (UDS)—a reporting system that provides uniformly defined data for major BPHC grant programs, including center, clinic, and patient characteristics, which can be compared with other national data.¹⁶

Study Results

Top Data And Methods Study Results Discussion NOTES

 
Changes in CHC visit rates and patient mix: 1994–2001. From 1994 to 2001, the average number of CHC visits per patient remained constant, with slight increases per 100 Americans. For uninsured people and most racial/ethnic groups, visit rates remained constant (Exhibit 1). Population visit rates at CHCs were four to seven times higher for Hispanics and black non-Hispanics than for whites, and substantially higher for the uninsured than for the overall U.S. population. Nonelderly adults and people with chronic illnesses accounted for a larger proportion of all visits in 2001 than in 1994 (Exhibit 2). A smaller proportion of visits in 2001 were for new patients.

Changes in CHC preventive services. Visits for routine care increased from 20 percent to 24 percent (p =.001) (Exhibit 2). Provision of immunizations increased significantly among children, as did vaccination for influenza and pneumonia among those over age sixty-five (Exhibit 2). Among women over age fifty, more visits resulted in the ordering of a mammogram in 2001 than in 1994 (data not shown). Among children, injury prevention counseling increased from 2.4 percent in 1994 to 4.8 percent in 2001 (p =.004); hearing testing, from 4.5 percent to 8.8 percent (p =.0001); and vision testing, from 6.7 percent to 12.5 percent (p =.0001) (data not shown). However, nutrition counseling for children declined during the period (data not shown).

Additional analyses found no disparities by race/ethnicity or insurance status in visit-based rates of use of certain preventive services (immunizations, Pap smears, cholesterol counseling, and weight reduction counseling) within years (data not shown). Neither were there any significant differences by race/ethnicity or insurance status in rates of blood pressure monitoring among people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity for either year (blood pressure was monitored at about 90 percent of visits).

Changes in continuity of care and financing. At the same time that CHCs cared for more adults with chronic illnesses, they provided significantly more ongoing care of established patients. This suggests an increasing morbidity burden and greater levels of continuity in 2001 versus 1994.

Changes in the financing of CHC visits were most pronounced for children (Exhibit 3), a likely consequence of national expansions in Medicaid and the introduction of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). One-fourth of overall visits were by uninsured patients in 1994, compared with 23 percent in 2001 (p =.02). There was a significant increase in the Medicaid managed care visit rate, with concomitant decreases in Medicare and privately financed managed care, reflecting national trends (Exhibit 3).

Top Data And Methods Study Results Discussion NOTES

Expanding capacity. The 1994–2001 expansion was accomplished by a balance between increases in the number of CHCs, the creation of new practice sites within existing centers, and the addition of new health professionals. Assuming continued support at projected funding levels, the growth initiative is likely to follow the same pattern, given that funding is targeted toward similar objectives.

Our findings suggest that the increased size of the CHC safety net will have a positive and disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities and the uninsured: Ethnic minorities are much more likely than non-Hispanic whites to use CHCs for their primary care, and the uninsured at CHCs have primary care visit rates higher than those of the general U.S. population.¹⁷

Strengthening the CHC safety net. CHCs are improving their financial position by obtaining insurance coverage for eligible clients and participating in managed care.¹⁸ The proportion of CHC visits by children with Medicaid and SCHIP increased from 1994 to 2001. This change may reflect increased efforts to obtain coverage for uninsured children.

With the threat of losing Medicaid market share in the mid-1990s, CHCs used numerous approaches to prevent such losses: Some established contracts with managed care organizations, some formed networks with other health centers and public hospitals, and some created their own nonprofit managed care organizations. In 1998, one-third of federally qualified CHCs participated in prepaid managed care arrangements.¹⁹ By 2002, more than two-thirds of CHCs participated in managed care at various levels.²⁰

Improving access and quality. Overall, despite caring for an older population with more chronic conditions in 2001 than in 1994, process indicators of quality in CHCs such as continuity of care, visit rates for routine checkups, and visits where immunizations were administered all improved during the study period. While the average number of visits per patient remained the same, the percentage of those visits in which preventive services were delivered increased. The rate of visits among the uninsured, per 100 uninsured Americans, also increased during this period. In light of prior work demonstrating the unmet health care needs of uninsured people, the visits rates of the uninsured to CHCs point to these centers’ role in providing access to the neediest Americans, who otherwise would go without care or receive substandard care.²¹ These are important findings, because they suggest that service delivery improved in tandem with access expansions.

In the United States, there is ample evidence of disparities in preventive services use by race, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance status.²² However, among CHC patients, such disparities are greatly reduced, and the quality of care at CHCs is equal to and in some cases better than care in other settings serving low-income people.²³ Also, we found no disparities in rates of preventive services delivery at CHC visits among whites, blacks, and Hispanics or between insured and uninsured groups. This finding demonstrates an association between primary care access via CHCs and reduction in disparities among people living in medically underserved areas.

Mobilizing the workforce. An important factor in fulfilling the growth initiative is CHCs’ ability to recruit and retain primary care physicians. Physicians provide the majority of care for the general CHC population, especially for the chronically ill. In light of the maldistribution of physicians and the shortage of primary care physicians relative to subspecialists, others have proposed that nonphysician clinicians play an increasing role in the delivery of routine care.²⁴ Increased incentives for primary care physicians to practice in medically underserved areas are also necessary.

Study limitations. Although the CHC visit and user surveys are useful methods for describing patients and some processes of care, they have some limitations.²⁵ First, they are a snapshot of care from a cross-sectional sample. Thus, they do not capture patients’ care over time. Second, although visit data can describe patterns of care, they cannot directly assess whether there is a causal relationship between CHCs and the receipt of guideline-appropriate care. However, other studies designed to measure quality of care in CHCs have found them to deliver services at rates comparable to or better than care in other settings.²⁶ Third, the definition used for "Asian/Pacific Islander (PI)" changed from 1994 (one response option) to 2001 (ten response options indicating country of origin). This likely led to inaccuracies in chart abstraction on the Asian/PI response and is the probable cause of the change in percentages of visits for this group from 1994 to 2001. In support of this conclusion, the percentage of CHC patients who are Asian/PI from the UDS data do not change significantly during this period.²⁷

The surveys from which we presented results do not provide real-time information, which could greatly aid in the implementation of the Federal Health Center Growth Initiative. Nonetheless, our study indicates that CHCs have greatly increased the volume of vulnerable people served while also improving continuity of care, delivery of preventive services, and overall access to care. Certain challenges remain, though, such as meeting the needs of an aging and more chronically ill patient population and ensuring an adequate primary care work-force. Thus, expansion of CHCs under the initiative—in tandem with increasing incentives for the pursuit of primary care careers and expanding insurance coverage—will likely bring us closer to the eventual elimination of primary care–sensitive health disparities.

Editor's Notes

 
Ann O’Malley (aomalley{at}hschange.org) is a senior researcher at the Center for Studying Health System Change, in Washington, D.C. Christopher Forrest and Leiyu Shi are associate professors in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in Baltimore, Maryland. Bob Politzer is senior adviser to the director, Policy and Program Support Staff, Bureau of Primary Health Care, at the Health Resources and Services Administration in Bethesda, Maryland. John Wulu is senior mathematical statistician and project officer there.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Department of Health and Human Services or any of its components.

NOTES

Top Data And Methods Study Results Discussion NOTES

 

1. C.B. Forrest and E.M. Whelan, "Primary Care Safety-Net Delivery Sites in the United States: A Comparison of Community Health Centers, Hospital Outpatient Departments, and Physicians’ Offices," Journal of the American Medical Association 284, no. 16 (2000): 2077–2083.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. The Health Centers Consolidation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–299, 110 Stat. 3626).
3. Bureau of Primary Health Care, "Data from the Uniform Data System," 2004, www.bphc.hrsa.gov/uds/data.htm (9 December 2004).
4. Department of Health and Human Services, "FY 2002 Budget Submission and Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committee" (Rockville, Md: DHHS, 2001).
5. BPHC, "Data from the Uniform Data System."
6. M. Falik et al., "Ambulatory Care Sensitive Hospitalizations and Emergency Visits: Experiences of Medicaid Patients Using Federally Qualified Health Centers," Medical Care 39, no. 6 (2001): 551–561.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. C. Ulmer et al., "Assessing Primary Care Content: Four Conditions Common in Community Health Center Practice," Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 23, no. 1 (2000): 23–38; V.A. Hedberg et al., "The Role of Community Health Centers in Providing Preventive Care to Adolescents," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 150, no. 6 (1996): 603–608[Abstract/Free Full Text]; K.D. Frick and J. Regan, "Whether and Where Community Health Center Users Obtain Screening Services," Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 12, no. 4 (2001): 429–445[Web of Science][Medline]; A.S. O’Malley and J. Mandelblatt, "Delivery of Preventive Services for Low-Income Persons over Age Fifty: A Comparison of Community Health Clinics to Private Doctors’ Offices," Journal of Community Health 28, no. 3 (2003): 185–197[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]; and J. Regan et al., "The Role of Federally Funded Health Centers in Serving the Rural Population," Journal of Rural Health 19, no. 2 (2003): 117–124.[Web of Science][Medline]
8. Research Triangle Institute, 2002 Community Health Center User and Visit Survey, Final Methodology Report, Contract no. CHHS-282-98-0022, prepared for HRSA (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: RTI, 13 December 2002); and Mathematica Policy Research, Community Health Center User and Visit Study, Survey Methodology Report, prepared by G.J. Carcagno et al. for HRSA (Princeton, N.J.: MPR, 29 August 1997).
9. Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act funds the grant program for CHCs to provide primary and preventive health care services in medically underserved areas throughout the United States and its territories.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. R.E. Folsom Jr. and A.C. Singh, "The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification," 2000, www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings, pp. 598–603 (9 December 2004); and Proc Survey Means in SAS 9.00.
13. J.P. Weiner and C. Abrams, eds., The Johns Hopkins ACG Case-Mix System, February 2000, acg.jhsph.edu (9 December 2004).
14. C.B. Forrest and R.J. Reid, "Prevalence of Health Problems and Primary Care Physicians’ Specialty Referral Decisions," Journal of Family Practice 50, no. 5 (2001): 427–432.
15. U.S. Bureau of the Census data for the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population, 1994 and 2000, Census 2001, factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet? (20 January 2005).
16. BPHC, "Services Offered and Delivery Method," 2001 UDS data, ftp.hrsa.gov/bphc/pdf/uds/udsNationalRollup-cy2001.pdf (9 December 2004).
17. D.R. Hawkins Jr. and S. Rosenbaum, "The Challenges Facing Health Centers in a Changing Health Care System," in The Future U.S. Healthcare System: Who Will Care for the Poor and Uninsured? ed. S. Altman, U. Reinhardt, and A. Shields (Chicago: Health Administration Press, 1998).
18. N.L. Stacy, "The Experience and Performance of Community Health Centers under Managed Care," American Journal of Managed Care 6, no. 11 (2000): 1229–1239[Web of Science][Medline]; and BPHC, "Data from the UDS."
19. Hawkins and Rosenbaum, "The Challenges Facing Health Centers."
20. BPHC, "Data from the UDS."
21. J.Z. Ayanian et al., "Unmet Health Needs of Uninsured Adults in the United States," Journal of the American Medical Association 284, no. 16 (2000): 2061–2069.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. See Physicians for Human Rights, "The Right to Equal Treatment: An Annotated Bibliography of Studies on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare, Their Causes, and Related Issues," 2003, www.phrusa.org/research/domestic/race/race_report/bibliography.html (9 December 2004).
23. Falik et al., "Ambulatory Care Sensitive Hospitalizations"; Ulmer et al., "Assessing Primary Care Content"; Hedberg et al., "The Role of Community Health Centers in Providing Preventive Care to Adolescents"; and O’Malley et al., "Delivery of Preventive Services."
24. M.O. Mundinger, "Twenty-First-Century Primary Care: New Partnerships between Nurses and Doctors," Academic Medicine 77, no. 8 (2002): 776–780.[Web of Science][Medline]
25. Research Triangle Institute and Mathematica Policy Research methodology reports (see Note 8).
26. Falik et al., "Ambulatory Care Sensitive Hospitalizations"; Ulmer et al., "Assessing Primary Care Content"; and Regan et al., "The Role of Federally Funded Health Centers."
27. BPHC, "Data from the UDS."

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. X. Zhang, E. S. Huang, M. L. Drum, A. C. Kirchhoff, J. A. Schlichting, C. T. Schaefer, L. J. Heuer, and M. H. Chin Insurance Status and Quality of Diabetes Care in Community Health Centers Am J Public Health, April 1, 2009; 99(4): 742 - 747. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Rittenhouse, G. E. Fryer Jr, R. L. Phillips Jr, T. Miyoshi, C. Nielsen, D. C. Goodman, and K. Grumbach Impact of Title VII Training Programs on Community Health Center Staffing and National Health Service Corps Participation Ann. Fam. Med, September 1, 2008; 6(5): 397 - 405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. G. Druss, T. Bornemann, Y. W. Fry-Johnson, H. G. McCombs, R. M. Politzer, and G. Rust Trends in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services at the Nation's Community Health Centers: 1998-2003 Am J Public Health, September 1, 2008; 98(Supplement_1): S126 - S131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Fiscella and K. Holt Impact of Primary Care Patient Visits on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Preventive Care in the United States J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2007; 20(6): 587 - 597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Shields, P. Shin, M. G. Leu, D. E. Levy, R. M. Betancourt, D. Hawkins, and M. Proser Adoption Of Health Information Technology In Community Health Centers: Results Of A National Survey Health Aff., September 1, 2007; 26(5): 1373 - 1383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. L. Cook, L. S. Hicks, A. J. O'Malley, T. Keegan, E. Guadagnoli, and B. E. Landon Access To Specialty Care And Medical Services In Community Health Centers Health Aff., September 1, 2007; 26(5): 1459 - 1468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hadley, P. Cunningham, and J. L. Hargraves Would Safety-Net Expansions Offset Reduced Access Resulting From Lost Insurance Coverage? Race/Ethnicity Differences Health Aff., November 1, 2006; 25(6): 1679 - 1687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. S. Hicks, A. J. O'Malley, T. A. Lieu, T. Keegan, N. L. Cook, B. J. McNeil, B. E. Landon, and E. Guadagnoli The Quality Of Chronic Disease Care In U.S. Community Health Centers Health Aff., November 1, 2006; 25(6): 1712 - 1723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. G. Druss, T. Bornemann, Y. W. Fry-Johnson, H. G. McCombs, R. M. Politzer, and G. Rust Trends in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services at the Nation's Community Health Centers: 1998-2003 Am J Public Health, October 1, 2006; 96(10): 1779 - 1784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. A. Rosenblatt, C. H. A. Andrilla, T. Curtin, and L. G. Hart Shortages of Medical Personnel at Community Health Centers: Implications for Planned Expansion JAMA, March 1, 2006; 295(9): 1042 - 1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Fiscella and H. J. Geiger Health information technology and quality improvement for community health centers. Health Aff., March 1, 2006; 25(2): 405 - 412. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]