RESUMEN
This article examined the impact of managed care involvement on vulnerable populations served by community health centers (CHCs), while controlling for center rural-urban location and size, and found that centers involved in managed care have served a significantly smaller proportion of uninsured patients but a higher proportion of Medicaid users than those not involved in managed care. The results suggest that the increase in Medicaid managed care patients may lead to a reduced capacity to care for the uninsured, thus hampering CHCs from expanding access to health care for the medically indigent.
Asunto(s)
Centros Comunitarios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Personas con Mala Vivienda/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicaid/estadística & datos numéricos , Pacientes no Asegurados/estadística & datos numéricos , Análisis de Varianza , Centros Comunitarios de Salud/organización & administración , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/economía , Humanos , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/economía , Grupos Minoritarios/estadística & datos numéricos , Pobreza/estadística & datos numéricos , Mecanismo de Reembolso , Planes Estatales de Salud , Estados Unidos , Revisión de Utilización de RecursosRESUMEN
Under managed care, community health center (CHC) care patterns will be increasingly subject to outside scrutiny. This article discusses results of medical records reviews assessing quality of care at CHCs for acute otitis media, diabetes, asthma, and hypertension. As a group, these safety net providers meet or exceed prevailing practice across other health care settings; however, there is substantial variation among sites. Regression analyses indicate that the individual CHC used by a patient is the most consistent determinant of whether a patient receives recommended care. Drawing on these results, the article explores approaches for improving care and discusses the implications for performance measurement among CHCs and other safety net providers.
Asunto(s)
Centros Comunitarios de Salud/normas , Auditoría Médica , Atención Primaria de Salud/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Adolescente , Adulto , Asma/terapia , Niño , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Femenino , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos , Hipertensión/terapia , Programas Controlados de Atención en Salud/normas , Persona de Mediana Edad , Otitis Media/terapia , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Community health centers (CHCs) are federally supported primary care providers to the low-income and uninsured. The federally qualified health center (FQHC) legislation requires states to pay CHCs for Medicaid services on the basis of reasonable cost. The statute generated controversy, particularly in a time when, for most providers, cost-related reimbursement has given way to fixed payments and managed care. This article examines the impact of FQHC on revenue and utilization of CHCs, using data for 328 centers that were in continuous operation between 1989 (the year the legislation was enacted) and 1992, the first year of full implementation. During this period, the CHCs Medicaid revenue grew rapidly. FQHC is estimated to account for under one third of the total increase, while inflation and growth in utilization due to expanded Medicaid eligibility are estimated to account for the other two thirds. At the same time, the change to cost-related reimbursement had a significant increase in total service users and Medicaid recipients receiving care from CHCs. Although some expected that cost-reimbursement would lead to inflationary increase in utilization, this did not occur. There was no statistically significant relationship between the change in payment methodology and changes in encounters per user. The experience of FQHC indicates that, for safety net providers of primary care, cost-related reimbursement is not "inherently inflationary." Results of this study raise the question of whether payment within constraints, but bearing relationship to cost, is not an appropriate approach to developing primary care capitation rates for these providers--and assuring maintenance of the safety net for the uninsured.
Asunto(s)
Centros Comunitarios de Salud/economía , Reembolso de Seguro de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Medicaid/legislación & jurisprudencia , Centros Comunitarios de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Centros Comunitarios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Recolección de Datos , Gastos en Salud , Humanos , Medicaid/organización & administración , Pacientes no Asegurados , Pobreza , Clase Social , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Integrating categorical funding to design "seamless systems of care" for individual patients is a challenge faced by many local community-based providers. Providers may choose to develop separate site-specific categorical programs for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) [e.g., specialized treatment site or a homeless clinic] or integrate these programs with their general primary care population. Regardless of program location, providers have developed patterns for finding the most appropriate medical home for a patient with multiple categorical risks. Medical records reviews and patient interviews indicate the importance of case managers in service coordination, although clinical issues appear more readily coordinated than situational ones. Provider dependence solely on case managers for service coordination, across sites and programs may become problematic in the era of managed care without a supportive information system that tracks client use and a records system that integrates clinical and social service notes. Local providers have encountered difficulties in exchanging essential medical information, even within a single agency, under state statutes regarding confidentiality of HIV test results.
Asunto(s)
Manejo de Caso/organización & administración , Servicios de Salud Comunitaria/organización & administración , Continuidad de la Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Organización de la Financiación , Atención Primaria de Salud/organización & administración , Vías Clínicas , Femenino , Infecciones por VIH/terapia , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud , Personas con Mala Vivienda , Humanos , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Embarazo , Embarazo de Alto Riesgo , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Case management has evolved as a flexible, pragmatic, and compassionate strategy for improving client access and care continuity within fragmented systems of health and social services. The first-generation case management programs have been designed for various settings that serve different "target" populations with varying social, medical, and psychological needs. This proliferation of categorical case management programs is a mixed blessing. While a categorical focus reflects both historical and public financing priorities, it creates a potentially duplicative and inefficient system in an era of limited resources. As the federal government assumes a more substantial role in supporting case management, greater attention is being given to accountability--demonstrating value-added benefits and identifying best practices for structuring case management. The essential first step is reaching agreement on two critical dimensions of case management, major goals and essential services. This article, based on a review of the literature, examines the extent to which seemingly disparate programs for special populations share common attributes, and thus present opportunities for structuring client-focused rather than categorical case management programs. The authors seek to stimulate a dialogue that would lead to specification of common goals and essential services, and a cross-cutting framework for designing client-focused case management programs.