Health Policy Research Brief

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Health Policy Research Brief Health Policy Research Brief December 2009 Creation of Safety-Net-Based Provider Networks Under The California Health Care Coverage Initiative: Interim Findings Dylan H. Roby, Cori Reifman, Anna Davis, Allison L. Diamant, Ying-Ying Meng, Gerald F. Kominski, Zina Kally and Nadereh Pourat rganized provider networks have been developed as a method of achieving efficiencies in the delivery of health care, and to reduce problems such as limited access to specialty and tertiary care, fragmentation and duplication of services, low- Oquality care and poor patient outcomes. Provider networks are based on collaborative agreements between an array of providers offering a comprehensive range of services, bolstered with extensive administrative, structural and financial supports.1, 2 Standard components of networks include private practice and clinic-based physicians, hospitals, and ancillary service providers such as laboratory and diagnostic services. Service providers are organized and supported by an organization that administers important aspects of the network, including provider reimbursement, utilization management, quality assurance and health information technology (HIT).3, 4 Organized provider networks have been used efforts to develop effective networks based by commercial insurers as part of managed on safety-net providers. care, and are being adopted increasingly by Medicaid and Medicare as an important Inherent Challenges in the Safety Net aspect of an effective health care delivery In contrast to the private sector, networks system.5 Research indicates that collaborative based on safety-net systems are less common care delivery networks can enhance the for a number of reasons. Safety-net providers capacity of local primary care and safety-net typically consist of local government health systems, improve access to care, and lead to care facilities, Federally-Qualified Health efficiencies in care delivery, thereby leading Centers (FQHCs), and other private entities, to improved health outcomes.5-9 However, including clinics and providers willing to public programs continue to face important provide free or reduced-cost care to low- barriers in developing organized provider income uninsured and Medicaid-insured networks. This policy brief examines the individuals.10-12 When safety-net care is experience of ten California counties reimbursed, it is ultimately financed through participating in the Health Care Coverage tax revenues redistributed to providers in Initiative (HCCI) demonstration project in various forms, including budget allocations overcoming these barriers and creating and other arrangements. Limited patient provider networks based on existing safety- payments for care as well as service delivery Support for this policy brief net systems. These interim findings should was provided by a grant from and infrastructure building grants may The California Endowment. provide valuable information for future supplement these revenues.9, 13 Over time, the A Publication of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research 2 Health Policy Research Brief number of uninsured individuals has increased Safety-net providers rely on limited and while government budgets that support care inconsistent financial support from federal, delivery to the uninsured have decreased, state and local sources, as well as on charity and private donations and resources have care provided by physicians and facilities.12, 14, 21 declined.14, 15 Moreover, facilities grapple with The fractured nature of funding contributes regional health care workforce shortages, rising to an absence of organized safety-net systems costs of care, limited access to information and little coordination between providers.12 technology and limited infrastructure Existing subsidies, including community resources and support.7, 16 health center grants and disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, are often The limited development and implementation assigned retrospectively based on uninsured of provider networks within the safety net and Medicaid patient caseload, uncompensated are due to numerous challenges.7 Safety-net care, and need.7, 11, 22, 23 Beyond negotiated systems vary considerably in size, scope inpatient Medi-Cal rates and the prospective and organization.7, 11 Most systems provide cost-based rates received by FQHCs, fragmented and episodic care and are burdened development of prospective reimbursement with compromised quality and high costs.7, 17 agreements within safety-net systems has Specific barriers include limited access to been limited.7, 11, 16, 24 primary care services; emergency room overcrowding; lack of access to specialty care, Evidence indicates that participation in an mental health care, and dental care; and organized care delivery network can mitigate financial pressures on patients and providers.7 many of the challenges faced by safety-net Barriers to timely access to specialty care are health care providers.8 Despite this evidence, of particular concern, with many primary care instances of such coordinated networks in the clinics unable to provide specialty services United States are infrequent.7, 25 Nevertheless, onsite or to refer patients to specialty it is feasible to create a comprehensive and providers and coordinate such care.7, 17-19 coordinated safety-net network with These problems are exacerbated by a limited administrative, financial and technological supply of specialists in some regions, many supports that can enhance access to a full of whom are not willing to accept uninsured range of provider types and services.8, 21, 26 or Medicaid patients.7 In addition, the reliance on emergency room services by Existing Examples of Safety-Net Provider Networks uninsured individuals is a major problem, Several examples of organized safety-net especially for patients with primary care- provider networks exist.10 Prior to the 2006 sensitive conditions such as diabetes, implementation of health care reform in congestive heart failure and asthma. These Massachusetts, the state funded safety-net care individuals represent a significant proportion through its uncompensated care pool to assist of preventable and potentially expensive hospitals that provided a disproportionate hospitalizations.7, 20 share of unreimbursed services and to remove disincentives to caring for uninsured Safety-net providers generally lack the capacity patients.25, 27 As early as 1995, two to provide a full range of services to their Massachusetts hospital systems with large patients.10 They rely heavily on private “free care” burdens, Boston Medical Center physicians and hospitals to accept their and the Cambridge Health Alliance, were specialty care referrals and to provide advanced granted permission to establish managed care diagnostic services. Often these services are programs for the uninsured, funded through provided with little or no payment. Moreover, the uncompensated care pool.26 Each medical many private physicians are reluctant to center created a “health plan” that issued accept uninsured patients without membership cards to eligible individuals and reimbursement contracts in place.14, 16, 21 assigned them a primary care provider.28 Health Policy Research Brief 3 Boston Medical Center’s network included Managed Care Approach in Network Design community health centers and clinic-based Modeling safety-net networks on managed providers. The coordinated safety-net network care networks has been examined in several provided comprehensive benefits, access to communities as an innovative way to improve specialty care, and included selection of or health status and control costs.26, 34-36 This assignment to a primary provider for each method was adopted in response to changes patient. The networks were effective in in the local health care markets, including encouraging appropriate use of primary care diminished resources and budgets, hospital services and reducing unnecessary expenditures mergers and deregulation of hospital rates, through reductions in emergency room use among others. Although implementation and preventable hospitalizations.25 Other models have varied between communities, states, including Michigan, Maine, Georgia, use of the managed care approach within the New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin have safety net has been credited with reductions implemented similar health care coverage in emergency room use and hospital days. systems based on uncompensated care pools.25, 27 Managed care organizations are expected to These systems are models of effective, improve access to a usual source of care, coordinated networks operating within the encourage the use of primary and preventive safety net, and have enhanced access and care, increase appropriate service use, and 25, 27 improved outcomes while reducing costs. eventually save costs.26 However, the extent to which these models improve clinical Some states have implemented organized outcomes is as yet unknown.26, 37 networks through Medicaid-managed care or other state-funded programs. In California, Pharmacy benefit management (PBM) and 23 counties enroll some or all of their medication reconciliation are critical Medicaid enrollees in managed care plans, utilization review and management tools while the remaining counties continue to used by managed care systems. These deliver fee-for-service (FFS) care to this services can result in a range of patient care population.29 Increasingly, FQHCs and other and administrative improvements, including safety-net providers are incorporated in such changes
Recommended publications
  • 2016 Community Health Needs Assessment
    2016 Community Health Needs Assessment A Triennial Report Summary Northridge Hospital Medical Center: 2016 Community Health Needs Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary……………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 3 Assessment Purpose and Organizational Commitment…..……….………………. ……………………………………………………. 9 Community Definition …………….……………………………..…………………………………………………………………….. 10 Demographic Profile ……….………….………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Community Needs Index (CNI) ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Assessment Process and Methods……………………..…………………………………………………………………………….….. 29 Assessment Data and Finding………………………..……………………………………………………………………… ………… 32 Prioritized Descriptions of Significant Community Health Needs……………………………………………………………………. 35 Community Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50 Impact: Actions Taken…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51 Appendix A: Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53 Appendix B: Demographic Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 55 Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement……………………………………………………………………………….….. 67 CHNA Community Public Health and Community Health Expert Participants……….......................................................... 76 Appendix D: Community Engagement Survey Tools ………………………………………………………..……………………….. 81 Appendix E: List of Secondary Data Sources………. …………………………...…………………………………………….……. 95 Northridge Hospital Community Health Needs Assessment, May 2016 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY____________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Utah's Health System Reform
    Report Number 688, October 2008 Utah’s Health System Reform Key Issues to Resolve HIGHLIGHTS Utah voters ranked healthcare as the fourth most important g Rising healthcare costs create a negative feedback issue of concern on Utah Foundation’s 2008 Utah Priorities cycle within the market, making health insurance unaffordable. This increases the number of Project survey. Among the top concerns in this area were uninsured who then use public programs (increasing state healthcare costs) or go without the cost of healthcare and the quality of health insurance insurance and receive uncompensated care (increasing healthcare costs and private insurance benefits. Survey respondents also expressed significant premiums). g During this decade, the percentage of people concern about losing health insurance, covering the utilizing government-based insurance has increased for almost all age groups as the uninsured, and the quality of healthcare. The high ranking percentage of people with private insurance has declined. of healthcare in the top ten issues reflects Utah voters’ g Based on common themes from health system concerns with the current health system. This research stakeholder interviews, six issues that need to be addressed for real systemic reform include: report reviews some of the major problems underlying the 1) navigating the federal system; 2) re-aligning stakeholder incentives; 3) improving on the current system, summarizes Utah’s initial steps for reform, market system; 4) defining affordability; 5) dealing with tradeoffs between cost, quality, and access; and identifies six issues that need to be addressed for real and 6) improving the reform process. systemic reform to take place at the state level.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Reformis Here!
    Prsrt Std US Postage 201 Third Street, 7th Floor Paid San Francisco, CA 94103 Fairfield, CA www.healthysanfrancisco.org Permit No 8 Have you moved? To update your information, call Customer Service at (415) 615-4555. The following summary of benefits NEWS AND UPDATES Fall 2013 compares your current Healthy San Francisco Look inside for more information about Working together for your health A Publication for Healthy San Francisco Participants Access Program and the Medi-Cal managed health care options. care insurance program. Healthy San Francisco Medi-Cal Benefits Health Care Access Managed Care Health Insurance Health Reform Not insurance is Here! Cost Sliding scale based on income: $0 Program cost n March 2010, President Obama signed the Care Act provides new funding to make sure that $0-$60 Program cost $0 Copay Affordable Care Act into law. The purpose of the everyone, particularly those with limited incomes, can Affordable Care Act is to improve the value and get free or discounted health insurance if they meet $0-$137 Primary care* $0 Pharmacy I delivery of health care in the United States. One of the citizenship and income requirements. $0-$25 Pharmacy $0 ER visit ways to do this is by increasing the number of Americans $0-$50 ER visit $0 Same-day surgery with health insurance. In California, that means Medi-Cal, the state’s free public $0-$100 Same-day surgery $0 Inpatient health insurance program, will be expanded so that it’s Beginning January 1, 2014, most Americans will be $0-$200 Inpatient/Admitted available to more people beginning January 1, 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Subsidized Health Coverage Programs to Attract Enrollment
    Contract No.: 233-02-0086 MPR Reference No.: 6203-950 Designing Subsidized Health Coverage Programs to Attract Enrollment: A Review of the Literature and a Synthesis of Stakeholder Views Final Report December 31, 2008 Lynn Quincy Patricia Collins Kristin Andrews Christal Stone Submitted to: Submitted by: ASPE/HHS Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 200 Independence Ave., S.W. 600 Maryland Ave., S.W., Suite 550 Washington, DC 20201 Washington, DC 20024-2512 Telephone: (202) 484-9220 Facsimile: (202) 863-1763 Project Officer: Project Director: Donald Cox Deborah Chollet A CKNOWLEDGMENTS his report was prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under contract number 233-02-0086 for the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), T U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Donald Cox and Donald Oellerich served as project officers for this report. We gratefully acknowledge their support of this study. Many individuals contributed to this report. Lynn Quincy is the primary author of the report. She received significant research and writing assistance from Kristin Andrews, Patricia Collins, Elizabeth Seif, Christal Stone, and Kia Alston. Deborah Chollet, Mary Harrington and Chris Trenholm provided expert advice. Debra Lipson reviewed the report and made useful suggestions that improved the quality of the report. Amanda Bernhardt led the editorial team and Donna Dorsey provided production assistance. Although we gratefully acknowledge the input of these individuals, the authors alone are responsible for any errors or omissions in the report. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the study participants and authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a High Performance Health Care System for Vulnerable Populations: Funding for Safety-Net Hospitals
    Toward a High Performance Health Care System for Vulnerable Populations: Funding for Safety-Net Hospitals Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System Deborah Bachrach, Laura Braslow, and Anne Karl Manatt Health Solutions March 2012 THE COMMONWEALTH FUND COMMISSION ON A HIGH PERFORMANCE HEALTH SYSTEM Membership David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. Jon M. Kingsdale, Ph.D. Chair of the Commission Consultant Stuart Guterman Samuel O. Thier Professor of Executive Director Medicine and Professor of Health Gregory P. Poulsen, M.B.A. Vice President for Payment Care Policy Massachusetts General Senior Vice President and System Reform Hospital/Partners HealthCare System Intermountain Health Care The Commonwealth Fund and Harvard Medical School Neil R. Powe, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A. Cathy Schoen, M.S. Maureen Bisognano, M.Sc. Chief, Medical Services Research Director President and Chief Executive Officer San Francisco General Hospital Senior Vice President for Institute for Healthcare Improvement Constance B. Wofsy Distinguished Research and Evaluation Professor and Vice-Chair of Medicine The Commonwealth Fund Sandra Bruce, M.S. University of California, San Francisco President and Chief Executive Officer Rachel Nuzum, M.P.H. Resurrection Health Care Louise Y. Probst, R.N., M.B.A. Senior Policy Director Executive Director Vice President for Federal Christine K. Cassel, M.D. St. Louis Area Business Health and State Health Policy President and Chief Executive Officer Coalition The Commonwealth Fund American Board of Internal Medicine and ABIM Foundation Martín J. Sepúlveda, M.D., FACP IBM Fellow and Vice President Michael Chernew, Ph.D. Integrated Health Services Professor IBM Corporation Department of Health Care Policy Harvard Medical School David A.
    [Show full text]
  • BOARD of GOVERNORS MEETING # 207 April 5, 2012 2:00 PM
    L.A. CARE HEALTH PLAN BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING # 207 April 5, 2012 ● 2:00 PM – 5:00 PM Vision A healthy community in which all have access to the health care they need. Mission To provide access to quality health care for Los Angeles County’s vulnerable and low income communities and residents and to support the safety net required to achieve that purpose. Values We are committed to the promotion of accessible, high quality health care that: • Is accountable and responsive to the communities we serve and focuses on making a difference; • Fosters and honors strong relationships with our health care providers and the safety net; • Is driven by continuous improvement and innovation and aims for excellence and integrity; • Reflects a commitment to cultural diversity and the knowledge necessary to serve our members with respect and competence; • Empowers our members, by providing health care choices and education and by encouraging their input as partners in improving their health; • Demonstrates L.A. Care’s leadership by active engagement in community, statewide and national collaborations and initiatives aimed at improving the lives of vulnerable low income individuals and families; and • Puts people first, recognizing the centrality of our members and the staff who serve them. BOARD OF GOVERNORS Thursday, April 5, 2012 (Meeting No. 207) 2:00 - 5:00 PM, L.A. Care Health Plan 1055 W Seventh Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 All votes in a teleconferenced meeting shall be by roll call. Teleconference Information Call (866) 528-2256 Access Code 7485299 Teleconference Sites Honorable Gloria Molina G.
    [Show full text]
  • HEALTHY SAN FRANCISCO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT the Value of Retention
    Healthy San Francisco Quarterly Refresher Trainings November 29 & 30, 2011 San Francisco General Hospital: Carr Auditorium Today’s Agenda Items 1. To get an update on: • HSF Enrollment Numbers • Updated Application Assistor Tools • SF PATH FPL Changes • SF PATH Split Households Agenda Items 2. To Review: • One-e-App Build • HSF Application Assistor Inquiries Agenda Items 3. To learn about: • Community Behavioral Health Access • HSF Technical Assistance Project HSF PROGRAM UPDATES HSF Enrollment Numbers As of November, there are 44, 741 participants enrolled in Healthy San Francisco! Updated Application Assistor Tools 8 Updated Application Assistor Tools Updated Application Assistor Tools 10 Updated Application Assistor Tools 11 SF PATH FPL Change • Effective November 14, 2011, the income eligibility threshold for new SF PATH applicants will decrease to 25% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) ($226/month for a family size of 1). • This change is being made due to some key changes in the program's expected costs due to regulatory changes. • However, all applicants who are currently participating in or previously participated in the SF PATH program will maintain a FPL threshold of 200% FPL for the life of the SF PATH program. ($1,816 for a family size of 1). • Just as a reminder: new applicants who are not eligible for SF PATH due to this change in eligibility rule may still be eligible for HSF. We strongly encourage all Application Assistors to submit an application in One-e- App. • The One-e-App system will be updated with these changes between November 9th and November 13th SF PATH Applicants and 12 Split Households • SF PATH applications can only be enrolled into SF PATH by a San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) employee, due to federal requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Click to Download 2018 SF Civil Surgeons Toolkit
    San Francisco Department of Public Health Grant Colfax Director of Health City and County of San Francisco London N. Breed Mayor May 1, 2019 Dear San Francisco City and County Civil Surgeon, NOTE: This toolkit has been updated since October 9, 2018. Certain changes have been made to highlight the following: • A Civil Surgeon TB Referral Checklist has been created to be used as a coversheet for when Civil Surgeons refer patients to the Tuberculosis Clinic. • LTBI diagnosis should be reported to the SFDPH Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Program; however, patients should not be referred to the Tuberculosis Clinic for LTBI treatment. Rather, LTBI treatment should be offered by the civil surgeon or the patient should be referred to their primary medical home. • All highlighted fields of the Confidential Morbidity Report must be completed. As of October 1, 2018, new 2018 Civil Surgeons TB Technical Instructions state that IGRAi testing is required for all applicants screened for status adjustment to lawful permanent resident in the US who are aged 2 years or older and are now required to report LTBI to the health department. A chest X-ray is required for all applicants with a positive IGRA result, known human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, or signs / symptoms of TB disease. Civil surgeons should not refer applicants to the health department for IGRA testing or chest X-ray; all IGRAs and chest x- rays ordered by civil surgeons must be performed independently of a health department. Applicants requiring an evaluation for active TB disease (abnormal chest X-ray or HIV infected) should continue to be reported to TB Control.
    [Show full text]
  • Healthfirst Connecticut Authority
    HEALTHFIRST CONNECTICUT AUTHORITY REPORT TO LEGISLATURE MARCH 11TH, 2009 SUBMITTED BY MARGARET FLINTER AND TOM SWAN CO-CHAIRS March 11, 2009 An open letter to the people of Connecticut regarding the work and recommendations of the HealthFirst Ct. Authority: Over the past eighteen months, we have been honored to serve as co‐chairs of the HealthFirst Ct. Authority. The Authority is a group of citizens appointed by the Legislature in 2007 to study and recommend ways to guarantee that all Connecticut residents have access to health insurance coverage and to safe, quality, health care. It was a tall order when we were appointed, and the profound changes in our state and country over the past year have only made it more so. We, along with our fellow members of the Authority, bring our own personal and professional experiences, beliefs, and values to the work. We represent many different walks of life, but when we accepted our appointments to the Authority, we indicated our commitment to the Institute of Medicine’s principles for coverage—continuous, equitable, affordable and sustainable—and its principles for healthcare—safe, timely, patient centered, of high quality, and effective. It would be easy for any one of us on the Authority to put forth on our own preference for how to fix our healthcare care system and say “now just do it!” But that’s not the way it works. We have had to listen, learn, and sometimes change our personal views in the interest of actually creating change for the better. We have found common ground in many areas, and not surprisingly, we have significant areas of difference on the best path forward for our state and all who live here.
    [Show full text]
  • HSF Network Operations Manual
    HEALTHY SAN FRANCISCO NETWORK OPERATIONS MANUAL Network Operations Manual January 2021 – December 2021 1125HSF HEALTHY SAN FRANCISCO NETWORK OPERATIONS MANUAL Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Manual ............................................................................................................................... 3 What is HSF? ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Network ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Medical Home Network .............................................................................................................................. 4 Medical Home Status ................................................................................................................................. 5 Medical Home Restrictions ......................................................................................................................... 5 Medical Home Status, Profile, and Directory Changes .............................................................................. 6 Facility Network ............................................................................................................................. 7 Standard of Care .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Participant Handbook
    PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health Updated October 2013 www.healthysanfrancisco.org Contents About this Handbook ........................... 1 Staying Healthy .................................. 16 What is Healthy San Francisco? ........... 1 Before Visiting Your Your Medical Home ................................ 3 Medical Home ..................................... 16 Your ID Card ........................................... 4 While You are at Your Medical Home ..................................... 17 Order a Replacement ID Card ............... 5 Before Leaving Your Medical Home ...... 18 Make an Appointment at Your Medical Home ....................................... 5 Participant Fees .................................. 19 Reporting a Complaint ........................... 6 Point of Services Fees ......................... 20 Health Care Services Provided by Time to Renew .................................... 21 Healthy San Francisco .......................... 7 Resources and Primary and Preventive Care .................. 7 Important Contacts ............... Back Cover Specialty Care ........................................ 7 Urgent Care .......................................... 8 Ambulance Services ............................... 8 Emergency Care .................................... 9 Mental Health Services .......................... 9 Alcohol & Drug Treatment ................... 10 Hospital Care ...................................... 10 Family Planning ................................... 13
    [Show full text]
  • Healthy San Francisco
    kaiser medicaid and the commission on uninsured K EY F ACTS March 2008 Healthy San Francisco On July 25, 2006, by a unanimous vote, the San Francisco current medical homes include 14 clinics operated by the Board of Supervisors adopted the Health Care Security San Francisco Department of Public Health and 13 clinics Ordinance, which created the Healthy San Francisco operated by the San Francisco Community Clinic program, making San Francisco the first city in the nation to Consortium. provide health care services to all uninsured residents. Healthy San Francisco is not health insurance, but rather it To enhance the care provided by the medical homes, the city provides access to affordable basic and ongoing health care is expanding its specialty service electronic patient referral services for uninsured residents, regardless of immigration system and plans to hire additional physicians and nurses to status, employment status, or pre-existing medical reduce wait times at the clinics and to meet the expected conditions. Administered by the San Francisco Department increase in demand for care. of Public Health, the program provides medical homes to uninsured adults and focuses on prevention and the Participant Cost Sharing management of chronic conditions. Enrollment into Healthy Enrollees in Healthy San Francisco are required to pay San Francisco began on July 2, 2007. quarterly participant fees based on income. The fees are assessed per family member, but are designed not to HEALTH COVERAGE IN SAN FRANCISCO exceed 5 percent of family income for individuals with income below 500% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Healthy San Francisco builds on a solid foundation of Residents with income below the poverty level are not employer-sponsored health care and public coverage, charged a participant fee.
    [Show full text]