federally qualified health enters a community solution …02d8455.netsolhost.com/documents/ct - a...

FFEEDDEERRAALLLLYY QQUUAALLIIFFIIEEDD HHEEAALLTTHH CCEENNTTEERRSS:: AA CCoommmmuunniittyy SSoolluuttiioonn ffoorr

CCoonnnneeccttiiccuutt HHeeaalltthh CCaarree RReeffoorrmm

MAY 2007

Prepared by Connecticut Primary Care Association

90 Brainard Road • Hartford, CT 06114 860.727.0004 • Fax: 860.727.8550

www.ctpca.org

© 2007. Connecticut Primary Care Association. All Rights Reserved

Table of Contents Federally Qualified Health Centers Offer a Readily Available Solution.............................................. 1 Meeting the Challenge............................................................................................................................... 2 Strategies for FQHC Capacity Expansion .............................................................................................. 4 PRIORITY ACTION STEP 1: ................................................................................................................ 5

Increase the Department of Public Health funding pool for providing care to uninsured patients. PRIORITY ACTION STEP 2: ................................................................................................................ 7

Implement a streamlined reimbursement mechanism for processing reimbursement to FQHCs for services to Medicaid patients, which will greatly reduce costs to the FQHCs and the State

PRIORITY ACTION STEP 3: ................................................................................................................ 8

Obtain full reimbursement for services for State Administered General Assistance (SAGA) patients in order to obtain 100% of the Prospective Payment Rates for all services, including mental health billed through the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and other optional services.

PRIORITY ACTION STEP 4: ................................................................................................................ 9 Release Bond Money Designated for Dental Expansion.

PRIORITY ACTION STEP 5: ............................................................................................................... 10 Earmark a portion of Governor M. Jodi Rell’s proposed disease management funding to community health centers.

PRIORITY ACTION STEP 6: ............................................................................................................. 12

Fund FQHCs to purchase, install and sustain health information technology/electronic health record development.

PRIORITY ACTION STEP 7: .............................................................................................................. 14

Workforce Development. PRIORITY ACTION STEP 8: .............................................................................................................. 16

Promote capital development through an established bonding/expansion fund for FQHCs. PRIORITY ACTION STEP 9: .............................................................................................................. 17

Leverage federal programs accessible to FQHCs such as 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program and professional liability coverage through the Federal Tort Claims Act to contain costs of care.

PRIORITY ACTION STEP 10: ............................................................................................................... 18

Provide Medicaid eligibility outreach workers on-site at FQHCs. Appendix A – CHIME Data Fact Sheet.................................................................................................... 19 Appendix B – The Impact of Community Health Centers & Community Affiliated Health Plans On Emergency Department Use.................................................................................................. 21 Appendix C – Dental Bonding Authorizations......................................................................................... 42 Appendix D – Community Health Center Facts ....................................................................................... 43 Charter Oak Health Center.......................................................................................................... 47 Community Health Services........................................................................................................ 48

© 2007. Connecticut Primary Care Association. All Rights Reserved

Community Health & Wellness Center of Torrington ................................................................ 49 East Hartford Community Healthcare......................................................................................... 50 Fair Haven Community Health Center........................................................................................ 51 Generations Family Health Center .............................................................................................. 52 Hill Health Center ....................................................................................................................... 53 Norwalk Community Health Center............................................................................................ 54 Optimus Health Care................................................................................................................... 55 StayWell Health Center............................................................................................................... 56 Southwest Community Health Center......................................................................................... 57 United Community & Family Services ....................................................................................... 58

© 2007. Connecticut Primary Care Association. All Rights Reserved 1

CONNECTICUT MOVES FORWARD IN HEALTH CARE REFORM The year 2007 marks a significant public and political move toward health care reform in Connecticut. There are nine health care bills that have passed Committee, an unprecedented development in the move toward universal health care. These bills, crafted by an array of stakeholders, propose various funding streams, insurance payors, and health plans but all seek to provide affordable health care to most residents and to streamline a health care system that costs too much and provides too little. FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS OFFER A READILY AVAILABLE SOLUTION Whatever the future holds for universal health care in Connecticut, federally qualified community health centers (FQHCs) play an important role in health care reform and expansion. For the past 40 years, FQHCs have provided access to quality care to vulnerable populations at a low cost to Connecticut taxpayers. In 2006, Connecticut Primary Care Association’s (CPCA’s) member FQHCs provided a medical home for 185,805 patients across 94 service delivery sites in Connecticut.1 FQHCs are ready, willing and able to DOUBLE THEIR CAPACITY to provide care to patients who now seek services at hospital emergency departments for non-urgent, non-emergent needs. Recent CHIME data indicate that between 2001 and 2005, Emergency Department utilization increased by nearly 10%–approximately four times the increase in the state's population over the same period. (Appendix A) Of the more than 1.4 million Emergency Department (ED) visits in 2005, 400,000 were for non-urgent care. At a recent legislative roundtable, CHA representatives noted that Connecticut hospitals provide one million basic primary care (non-urgent) clinic visits and 500,000 emergency department visits for non-emergent complaints.2 Many of the patients seeking non-urgent care were either uninsured or are enrolled in state-funded health insurance programs and consequently lack more appropriate primary care options. Doubling FQHC capacity and implementing the priority action steps identified herein will relieve hospital emergency department overcrowding. At least two-thirds of the 1.5 million patient visits that currently occur in emergency departments can be provided in more appropriate FQHC settings. Coinciding with the release of that information, the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) and the Association of Community-Affiliated Plans (ACAP) recently released a joint report: The Impact of Health Centers and Community-Affiliated Health Plans on Emergency Department Use. (Appendix B) This report describes the crisis around over-utilization of EDs, how having a health care home eases ED overcrowding and generates cost savings. Health centers could save Medicaid approximately $4 billion annually by reducing avoidable ED visits. Patients served by health centers have fewer preventable ED visits than those in underserved areas without a health center. The existing infrastructure of FQHCs in Connecticut offers a readily available solution to expand access to primary care services in order to reduce inappropriate, expensive emergency department utilization. The FQHC model of care controls the cost of caring for Medicaid patients by reducing the need for specialty care referrals and preventing hospital admissions. Studies have found that FQHCs save the Medicaid program between 30-33% in annual spending per beneficiary. In Connecticut, the total spending per FQHC Medicaid patient is $737. In 2006, FQHCs served

1 2006 UDS, Bureau of Primary Health Care, preliminary data. 2 S. Frayne, CT Hospital Association, Senior Vice President, Health Policy, Appropriations Human Services Committee Roundtable Discussion on Federally Qualified and School Based Health Centers, April 30, 2007


81,332 Medicaid patients. At a 30% savings, the cost per Medicaid beneficiary saved is $313 annually, for a total annual Medicaid savings of $25.5 million. With a federal reimbursement of 50%, the state saves $12.8 million every year.3 Savings in reduced hospital admissions should be factored into the centers’ cost effectiveness equation. It is estimated that Connecticut FQHCs could save the Medicaid program over $200 million annually by preventing avoidable emergency room visits.4 MEETING THE CHALLENGE If health care reform passes in Connecticut, the challenge will be to find medical homes for large numbers of the 340,000 uninsured individuals in the state who will seek access to services. The response to this challenge will need to be a coordinated effort with local and state health agencies, legislators and health systems to create a plan to provide coverage and access to care for the uninsured, either through the creation of affordable private insurance plans or by expanding public insurances such as HUSKY. By design, FQHCs have the infrastructure and culturally competent workforce and capacity to adapt to fluctuations in patient and community health care needs. This was evident when health centers were mandated in 2003 to provide a medical home for State Administered General Assistance (SAGA) patients. Within a span of 16 months health centers opened their doors to 10,099 new patients.5 The current public health system under HUSKY and SAGA cannot absorb more patients without increasing the number of Medicaid providers and facilities across the state. By investing in FQHCs to increase capacity, the State will be able to access immediate results while saving start-up costs and administrative overhead for new programs/models. The goal of this paper is to illustrate how investing in FQHC expansion can solve some of the dilemmas posed by imminent health care reform in Connecticut. Can the FQHC health system deliver care to huge numbers of uninsured patients, SAGA and HUSKY patients and absorb additional costs? Who will pay for the costs of health care for these patients? What strategies can the state adopt to leverage its resources to achieve maximum access to the highest quality health care to Connecticut residents? To answer these questions, Connecticut Primary Care Association, with the input of its member FQHCs, presents this proposal of 10 prioritized strategies that could double the number of patient visits that health centers can serve. By 2012 the health centers could have the capacity to provide services to an additional 247,000 patients annually, which is double their current capacity and would provide access to primary health care for the thousands of patients who may become insured as part of Connecticut’s universal health care initiatives.

3Cost savings formula based on memo from Heather Mizeur, Director of State Affairs, National Association of Community Health Centers (2003). UDS 2006 data include aggregate data from 12 CPCA member FQHCs. 4 A Sketch of Community Health Centers, National Association of Community Health Centers, 2006. 5 Community Health Network, 2006


This proposal also anticipates that many Connecticut citizens may remain uninsured despite best efforts to insure a large portion of the 340,000 people who are currently uninsured in Connecticut. The table below shows current FQHC capacity and potential additional capacity by payor mix.

Patients 2006 Current

Capacity6

2012 Potential

ADDITIONAL

Capacity7

Percentage

Increase

Uninsured 61,544 68,000 110%

Medicaid 105,565 115,000 109%

SAGA 22,003 23,000 105%

Medicare 12,426 14,000 113%

Private Insurance 24,622 27,000 110%

Total 226,160 247,000 109%

6 This number represents all 13 FQHCs in Connecticut. 7 Potential additional capacity is calculated ONLY for CPCA’s 12 member FQHCs.


STRATEGIES FOR FQHC CAPACITY EXPANSION If FQHCs are to be the vehicle for universal health care access, there are major areas within the FQHC infrastructure that need to be sustained and strengthened. CPCA’s member FQHCs have identified the following 10 Priority Action Steps and associated estimated cost for each to be considered as short term goals (2008) and long term objectives (2012).

PRIORITY ACTION STEP

2008

2012

Increase the Department of Public Health funding pool for providing care to uninsured patients.

$12,600,000 $19,500,000

Implement a streamlined payment mechanism for processing reimbursement to FQHC for services to Medicaid patients, which will greatly reduce administrative costs to the FQHCs and the State.

No Cost No Cost

Obtain full reimbursement for services for State Administered General Assistance (SAGA) patients in order to obtain 100% of the Prospective Payment Rates for all services, including mental health billed through the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and other optional services.

$2,245,000

$12,000,000

Earmark a portion of Governor M. Jodi Rell’s proposed disease management funding for community health centers.

$1,000,000

Fund FQHCs to purchase, install and sustain health information technology/electronic health record development.

$10,945,000 $1,500,000 per year ongoing

Workforce Development $850,000 $7,500,000

Leverage federal programs accessible to FQHCs such as 340B Federal Drug Pricing Program and professional liability coverage through the Federal Tort Claims Act to contain costs of care.

$1,000,000

Provide Medicaid Eligibility Workers on-site at FQHCs. $850,000 $850,000 per year ongoing

Total General Funds $29,490,000 $41,350,000

Additional Patients Served

Release Bond Money Designated for FQHC Dental Expansion

$3,694,591 36,287 dental

Promote capital development through an established bonding/expansion fund for FQHCs.

$95,745,828 184,624 medical and dental

20,730 behavioral health

Total Bonding Funds $99,440,419


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 1: INCREASE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING POOL FOR PROVIDING CARE TO UNINSURED PATIENTS.

Rationale: Even if FQHCs maximize the enrollment of eligible patients, particularly children, large numbers of uninsured patients and undocumented immigrants will continue to access primary care services at FQHCs. Between 1998 and 2006, the number of uninsured patient visits at CPCA’s member FQHCs rose by 145%. During this same time period, DPH’s contribution to cover these services per patient visit dropped from $44.86 to $18.79.8 The impact of this reduction of DPH funding to health centers was $5.3 million per year. As the disparity widens between demands for services for the uninsured and funding, from both state and federal agencies, health centers cannot sustain their current volume and quality of care to the uninsured.

FQHC UNINSURED PATIENT VISITS COMPARED TO DPH FUNDING*

FISCAL YEARVISITS

210,000205,081197,752180,507178,791 V V146,926 $$ V V136,560 $$ $$ V V122,220 V $$

85,753 VDPH Grants

DPH Contribution

Per Visit

2004-05

3,384,898$

$17.12

$$

$36.00 $29.77 $20.57

$4,916,325 $4,374,556 $3,676,913$3,846,700 $4,670,525

$44.86 $38.21

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

$$ $$

$18.79

2005-06

$$

3,853,546$

2003-04

3,652,476$

$20.23

2002-03

This chart reflects National averages.

8 *CPCA Member Centers Only (12 of 13 CT FQHCs)


In September 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell issued bonding funds to each of the FQHCs. Based on the increased capacity created by this expansion, over 56,000 uninsured patient visits can be provided. The cost of these uninsured patients to FQHCs will be $7.3 million annually. The combined total of funding needed to absorb the current costs ($5.3 million) of the uninsured at FQHCs and to accommodate the influx of new patients due to facilities expansion is $12.6 million per year. 9 Going forward, as noted in Priority Action Step 8, FQHCs could further expand their capacity if capital development funding became available. The impact of increased capacity on the volume of uninsured visits can be projected at 57,645 medical patients or 203,500 patient visits in the next two years and an additional 79,728 patients or 279,000 patient visits within 3-5 years. The anticipated cost of covering the uninsured portion of the approximately 482,500 (203,500 + 279,000) patient visits is $19.5 million per year. The increase in DPH funding of $32.1 million annually is necessary to cover the costs of providing care to uninsured patients which is not covered by federal funding to FQHCs.

9 This figure is based on $5.3 million to cover FQHC cost for the services they currently provide uninsured patients and $7.3 million to cover 56,000 anticipated uninsured patient visits, using the average FQHC Prospective Payment System per visit rate of $128.75.


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 2: IMPLEMENT A STREAMLINED PAYMENT MECHANISM FOR PROCESSING REIMBURSEMENT TO FQHC FOR SERVICES TO MEDICAID PATIENTS, WHICH WILL GREATLY REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO THE FQHCS AND THE STATE.

Rationale: Federally Qualified Health Centers are reimbursed for services provided to their Medicaid patients using a formula that is intended to cover the cost of providing those services. Beginning in 2001, in place of calculating a clinic’s actual cost of providing care, a Prospective Payment System (PPS) was instituted that pays a per-visit rate calculated using the facility’s average cost during fiscal years 1999 and 2000. For subsequent years, the PPS rate is based on the preceding year’s rate, adjusted using the Medicare economic index (MEI) as a cost-of-living increase. Increases have been minimal, about 3 percent per year. DSS limits the FQHCs’ ability to raise PPS rates as circumstances change, and many believe the MEI underestimates actual increases in cost. This means a widening gap each year between the actual cost of providing care and the PPS rate, which in many cases does not cover even the basic costs associated with traditional medical care for covered services. That gap is exacerbated by the cost of enhanced services such as case management, nutrition, psychosocial counseling, patient education, transportation, and translation. These are the very services that have been demonstrated to make clinics so effective in bringing in and caring for hard-to-reach populations, and shielding them from preventable conditions requiring more costly care.

In Connecticut, the FQHCs have been reimbursed through a bifurcated payment method wherein a small portion of their payment is processed through the Medicaid Managed Care Organizations and the larger “wraparound” payment is paid directly through the Department of Social Services. From July 2004 to June 2006, the wraparound payments were estimated amounts initially based on 2004 visits volumes. As FQHC visit volume has skyrocketed, the importance of being paid in full for actual visit volume has become more critical. Payment of FQHCs through EDS in a single payment will alleviate the burdensome administrative processes and delays caused by the bifurcated payment.

Further, legislation that guarantees FQHCs the opportunity to apply for rate review at least once annually, will assure a process for FQHCs to align the rates for FQHCs with the cost of providing those services.

These two administrative processes can be changed at no cost.10

10 The fiscal impact of increased Medicaid enrollment is not within the scope of this proposal.


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 3: OBTAIN FULL REIMBURSEMENT FOR SERVICES FOR STATE ADMINISTERED GENERAL ASSISTANCE (SAGA) PATIENTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN 100% OF THE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT RATES FOR ALL SERVICES, INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH BILLED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES AND OTHER OPTIONAL SERVICES. Rationale: Three years ago a fiscally conservative legislature wanted to eliminate the SAGA program in order to cut health care costs. FQHCs convinced the State to let them manage basic health care for the 28,000 SAGA clients to save the State money and preserve medical benefits for these recipients. The FQHCs even undertook this agreement with the State at a reduced reimbursement rate just to save these thousands of residents from becoming uninsured. Now with data from the first two years of operation—FQHCs have saved the State money and provided more effective, quality care to an increasing number of SAGA recipients. In addition, the changes State legislators implemented in 2003 to the SAGA and HUSKY programs added thousands of uninsured people to FQHC patient rolls. Connecticut’s FQHCs provided 59,476 medical visits to 20,097 SAGA patients in 2005, an 18% increase from 2003. FQHCs are reimbursed at 95% of their prospective payment rate per SAGA visit. Based on a 5% loss on each SAGA patient visit, FQHCs lose approximately $445,000 per year. FQHCs require full reimbursement for services to SAGA patients at their cost based rates. To fully fund SAGA FQHC services should be reimbursed at 100% of the prospective payment rate. In addition, mental/behavioral health services to SAGA patients are reimbursed through DMHAS at rates far below FQHC costs. The distinction between medical/dental FQHC services to SAGA patients and FQHC mental/behavioral health services to SAGA patients has no basis. It is estimated that $1,800,000 would be sufficient funding to include reimbursement for SAGA mental/behavioral health services at the FQHC prospective payment (Medicaid) rate. The total allocation to fully fund SAGA FQHC services to the current SAGA recipients should be $2,245,000. If FQHCs are fully funded and health reform increases the number of SAGA eligible patients, it is anticipated that by 2012 FQHCs could serve 23,000 additional patients who meet SAGA eligibility criteria at an annual cost of $12,000,000.


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 4: RELEASE BOND MONEY DESIGNATED FOR FQHC DENTAL EXPANSION

Rationale: Between 1993 and 2005, bond money for dental expansion at FQHCs was authorized by the General Assembly.11 Quality dental care is extraordinarily difficult for Medicaid recipients and other low-income residents to obtain. The table below demonstrates how the release of those bond funds through the Bond Commission agenda can impact access to dental services.

Community Health Center Dental Additional Patients Served

by End of 2008

Charter Oak Health Center $855,883 5,628

Community Health & Wellness Center

of Greater Torrington

$233,000 2,975

East Hartford Community Healthcare $336,861 4,664

Generations Family Health Center $776,500 4,500

Hill Health Corporation $684,673

7,920

Optimus Health Care $131,808

3,800

Southwest Community Health Center $67,500 4,400

StayWell Health Center $74,745 -0-

United Community & Family Services $533,621 2,400

Total $3,694,591 36,287

11 Specifics of these bond authorizations are included in Appendix C.


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 5: EARMARK A PORTION OF GOVERNOR M. JODI RELL’S PROPOSED DISEASE MANAGEMENT FUNDING TO COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS.

Rationale: Governor M. Jodi Rell has proposed a disease management program funded by the state at $2 million, including $500,000 for the Easy Breathing Asthma program.12 According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, community health center patients are more likely to have a chronic disease such as mental disorders, diabetes, asthma and hypertension as compared to patients of private physicians.13 To address this patient need and to reduce the health disparities that are prevalent among minority groups in this state and across the nation, all Connecticut’s FQHCs have been engaged in a national disease management program, the BPHC Health Disparities Collaborative since 1999. The Connecticut Primary Care Association (CPCA) has led this process for ten states in the Northeast and has an extensive training platform for FQHCs to improve chronic illness care. The focus of this initiative is the implementation of the Chronic Care Model, a system of care that addresses systemic changes in the community, organization, practice and patient levels of health care. The health organization is redesigned to offer patient centered care and better access to office visits. The community is engaged to provide resources and support to patients. The model is population based, and incorporates the use of an electronic disease registry which not only gives the provider a picture of his or her aggregated patient populations, but provides evidence based practice check points. Patients receive education and encouragement in self management of their disease. The overall goal of the Chronic Care Model is to create a proactive provider/patient relationship to manage the patient’s chronic illness. Connecticut FQHCs are currently using this approach to patient care and the electronic patient registry. Connecticut FQHCs are poised to move to the next phase of the Health Disparities Collaborative, “Access and Redesign,” which is the redesign of community-based health centers’ delivery systems to create ready access to their services. By making changes at the practice level, the system is redesigned to manage provider demand and supply, establish skilled efficient provider-led teams, organize the population to support provider accountability and patient continuity. The primary goal of this advanced access approach is to assure that patients are seen when they ask to be seen, often on the same day they request to be seen. These changes will increase provider and team capacity by eliminating waste in the system. An evaluation of an Access and Redesign initiative in California14 showed a 45% average decrease in cycle time (total time of office visit) and a 36% increase in provider productivity (number of patients seen per hour). Another study of 14 practices in North Carolina that participated in an Open Access Collaborative looked at primary care outpatient, urgent care and ED utilization and costs for children served by Medicaid. The study showed an elimination of unnecessary visits that were either acute care or follow up visits but no change in preventive care visits. Overall, the state’s Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) annually saved $272,004. The study concluded that if all children served by Medicaid in North Carolina went to practices that utilized Open Access, the Medicaid program could save approximately $11,275,000 each year from urgent care center and outpatient charges. Appropriating $1,000,000 of the proposed Disease Management funding for FQHC systems access and redesign will increase access to services and maximize FQHC workforce as well as

12 The Governor’s Budget, February 2007 13 A Sketch of Community Health Centers, National Association of Community Health Centers, 2006. 14 Evaluation of the California HealthCare Foundation’s Ambulatory Care Redesign Collaborative, The Lewin Group, Inc., July 2006.


increase revenues. If health centers implement Access and Redesign, within three years health centers could increase patient volume by 45,232 .15 Connecticut Primary Care Association continues to support chronic disease management through its New England Clinicians Forum, a web site for advancing community health by offering a forum to exchange information, ideas and tools for clinical practice and to promote research through a practice-based research network (PBRN). (See www.neclinicians.org for more information.) CPCA applies for grants to health foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Connecticut Health Foundation to augment the work of health centers implementing chronic disease management.

15 Based on formula: 20% increase in provider productivity = .20 x 226,161 (number of patients seen annually) = 45,232.


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 6: FUND FQHCS TO PURCHASE, INSTALL AND SUSTAIN HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD DEVELOPMENT. Rationale: In order to expand FQHC capacity to meet health care needs in the coming years, FQHCs must be equipped with health information technology (HIT) that maximizes quality of care and efficiency. According to a study funded by the National Association of Community Health Centers, only 8% of health centers nationally have adopted electronic medical records, as compared to 18% of private physicians.16 The Connecticut Primary Care Association has engaged the consulting firm of RSM McGladrey Inc. to explore the opportunities available for FQHCs to purchase, install and use electronic health records. The goals of this process are:

1. Establish a baseline of the current application of technology among the member organizations;

2. Describe gaps between CPCA members’ utilization of technology, if any, and alternative HIT models;

3. Compare the current status of information technology among the member organizations to health care and technology industry standards and practices;

4. Derive specific recommendations as to next steps and remediation efforts for FQHC HIT technology; and

5. Evaluate options for future HIT improvements and prepare to lead a strategic planning process on behalf of its members.

RSM McGladrey Inc. will lead the strategic planning process utilizing the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodology which presents three phases:

• Phase I Diagnostic Review—Data Gathering o assess health centers’ current HIT applications and future requirements o plan management and governance processes to support current and future HIT

applications o short- and long-range financial planning

• Phase II Project Evaluation Meeting—Present report of findings and recommendations • Phase III Visioning Session—Meet with CPCA to facilitate and create a vision of

CPCA’s role in promoting the findings and analysis of the report. The Connecticut Primary Care Association has a long-term commitment to helping community health centers adopt HIT. CPCA supports FQHC participation in Safety.net, a Connecticut - Regional Health Information Organization, (RHIO), which was recently formed in partnership with the UCONN Medical Center, Waterbury and New Britain HCAP programs, Community Health Center, Inc and Bergdorf Medical Center. Safety.net plans to focus on two immediate objectives: securing the needed financial assistance required to purchase, install and maintain an Electronic Health Record in all safety net provider offices and ensuring that these systems can communicate with the broader network of health providers within their community such as hospitals and health departments. The Connecticut Primary Care Association is perfectly positioned to be the Health Information Exchange (HIE) service provider between the FQHCs and all other HIE networks. Start-up costs for the HIE service is estimated at $2,500,000.

16 2006 Survey of Health Center Use of Electronic Information, NACHC and Harvard Medical School.


Based on the table below, community health centers need a total of $10,945,000 to start up, enhance and maintain their electronic health record systems and interface with the CPCA HIE. Community Health Center Electronic Health

Record

Charter Oak Health Center $800,000

Community Health & Wellness Center of Greater Torrington $120,000

East Hartford Community Healthcare $125,000

Fair Haven Community Health Center $500,000

Generations Family Health Center $1,000,000

Hill Health Center $1,500,000

Optimus Health Care $1,000,000

Southwest Community Health Center $500,000

StayWell Health Center $400,000

United Community & Family Services $1,000,000

CPCA HIE Service $2,500,000

Annual FQHC IT Support Staff $1,500,000

Total $10,945,000


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 7: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Rationale: Connecticut’s FQHCs currently employ 1,376 FTE individuals, 536 FTE medical and dental providers.17 The FQHCs host scores of medical and dental students and are sites for hundreds of medical residency rotations in community-based primary care. These are important opportunities for practice in areas designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) as health professional shortage areas, medically underserved areas or areas with medically underserved populations. A new report shows that 451,912 or 12.9% of Connecticut’s citizens are medically disenfranchised due to local primary care physician shortages.18 Progressive community-based medical residency experiences profoundly impact the training and development of medical residents contemplating career long service as “safety net providers” to our most vulnerable populations across Connecticut at a time when the nation’s primary care workforce is “on the verge of collapse.”19 CPCA has adopted the goals of the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) to:

• Reverse the decline in the primary health care workforce; • Achieve greater diversity of the workforce and the development of culturally proficient

providers; and • Establish a clear expectation for training conducted in community-based settings and

practice in medically underserved areas. The FQHCs have three avenues through which to pursue these goals:

• Recruitment and retention incentives through federal and state loan repayment programs to attract and retain clinicians in all disciplines;

• National Health Service Corps placement opportunities based on health professional shortages;

• Creation of a dynamic community-based medical residency training program that will become a national model of excellence.

The opportunities FQHCs can access through these three channels can be maximized in three ways:

1. The Connecticut Department of Public Health current budget of $225,000 each year,

which is matched dollar for dollar with federal funds, can be increased to create more loan repayment incentives for clinicians to work at FQHCs. Immediate increases in the DPH budget for the Connecticut State Loan Repayment budget are needed to equip FQHCs with recruitment and retention incentives. The following table shows current provider staff and the anticipated need of additional staff if patient visits are doubled.

17 UDS 2006, preliminary data. 18 National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc and The Robert Graham Center, “Access Denied: A Look at America’s Medically Disenfranchised,” 2007. 19 Remarks by Dan Hawkins, Vice President for Federal, State and Public Affairs, National Association of Community Health Centers on November 29, 2006 at a Health Professions Diversity Summit sponsored by the National Council of Centers of Excellence.


Staff Level Current FTE’s Projected FTE Need by 2012

Physicians—FPs, GP, Internists, OB/GYN, Pediatricians, Specialists

78.2

156.3

Mid Level—NPs, PA, Certified Nurse Midwives, Nurses, Other Med Personnel, Lab Personnel, X-ray Personnel

428.6

857.2

Dentists, Dental Hygienists, Dental Assistants, Aids, Techs

107.2

214.5

An increase of $7,500,000 will fund 100 loan repayment slots that will enable FQHCs to

offer loan repayment as a recruitment/retention incentive. 2. At no additional cost to the State, the Department of Public Health can assist the FQHCs

in increasing their Health Professional Shortage Area scores which bears directly upon their ability to compete for National Health Service Corps scholars and loan repayers.

3. FQHCs in Connecticut are located in crucial service areas in the state and are eager to

partner with the University of Connecticut and the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health to create a residency program and educational track20 that will feed the demand for primary care physicians in underserved areas. The costs of this program for the start up/pilot year would be $250,000 and $600,000 for each subsequent year for a total of $ 850,000.

In addition, the funding included in this proposal to fully compensate FQHCs for services provided, both through their Medicaid rate and grants for services to the uninsured, are key to allowing FQHCs to compete in the market for providers. In 2003 the average family practice physician for primary care in Connecticut was $142,516.21 By 2005, the average FQHC family practice physician salary of $107,50022 was well below the private practice salary of two years earlier.

20 Bill No. 684, An Act Concerning Medical Residency Training Program 21 OLR Research Report: Physician Salaries in Connecticut, 2003-R-0297 22 Connecticut Primary Care Association 2005 Salary and Compensation Survey


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 8: PROMOTE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH AN ESTABLISHED BONDING/EXPANSION FUND FOR FQHCS. Community Health Center Medical /

Other


by End of 2008

2009 – 2011

Plan


by End of 2011

Charter Oak Health Center $5,296,993 12,055 medical


$4,872,272 11,350 medical

2,885 dental


Community Health Services $2,085,000 2,000 medical $3,000,000 13,000 medical and

dental

Community Health & Wellness Center

of Greater Torrington

$2,309,000 4,750 medical

$3,288,000 5,000 medical

4,825 dental

East Hartford Community Healthcare

$190,051 1,190 medical

$2,350,000 3,407 medical

9,033 dental

Fair Haven Community Health Center $395,000 2,000 medical


$2,200,000 1,500 medical

2,000 dental

Generations Family Health Center $3,800,000 8,000 medical


$9,000,000 11,250 medical

8,062 dental


Hill Health Corporation $5,373,000 9,000 medical

$10,000,000 5,500 medical


Norwalk Community Health Center $6,500,000 2,500 medical 10,000 medical/behavioral

Optimus Health Care $2,381,000 6,000 medical

900 behavioral health

$3,574,512 7,500 medical

1,200 dental


Southwest Community Health Center $3,500,000 6,150 medical

$5,000,000 9,150 medical

7,450 dental


StayWell Health Center $975,000 2,000 medical $6,956,000 6,571 medical

7,296 dental

United Community & Family Services $2,200,000 2,000 medical


$10,500,000 3,000 medical

2,000 dental


Total $35,005,044 57,645 medical

5,928 behavioral

health

$60,740,784 126,979 medical and

dental

14,802 behavioral

health


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 9: LEVERAGE FEDERAL PROGRAMS ACCESSIBLE TO FQHCS SUCH AS 340B FEDERAL DRUG PRICING PROGRAM AND PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE THROUGH THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT TO CONTAIN COSTS OF CARE. Rationale: FQHCs have submitted proposals to receive start up funding to initiate 340B Federal Drug Pricing programs. This program allows health centers to purchase pharmaceuticals far below the cost that the state pays for Medicaid pharmaceuticals. A cost savings of at least 15.1% and 11% minimum are realized for brand names and generic pharmaceuticals, respectively. Negotiated pricing can result in a discount of 50% of wholesale cost. Three FQHCs in Connecticut currently operate 340B programs and need money to expand their pharmacy program to cover the growth in new patients. To expand the 340B program to other health centers, funding is needed to cover legal fees for contract specifics, start-up inventory and tracking systems to meet rigorous 340B requirements for reporting in order to prevent diversion of the 340B medications. Overall funding required is $ 1,000,000.

Professional liability coverage for FQHC clinicians is obtained at NO COST to the FQHCs through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Adding clinicians to the FQHC workforce will increase capacity for patient care at reduced cost because of the considerable savings realized through FTCA coverage.


PRIORITY ACTION STEP 10: PROVIDE MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY WORKERS ON-SITE AT FQHCS. Rationale: Currently, CPCA administers a grant from the Department of Social Services to fund outreach workers in each FQHC to assist patients with the HUSKY application process. Outreach workers assist clients with the application process, but cannot deem eligibility. Because health centers are the portal for many uninsured patients, providing on-site eligibility determination would expedite the process for obtaining coverage, thus saving the health centers, managed care organizations and the State the added administrative expense and delay of the extensive paperwork required for retroactive eligibility status, denials due to incomplete applications or documentation and lost follow-ups. In 2006, FQHC outreach staff processed 5,513 HUSKY applications, of which 3,655 were approved. Most FQHCs are unable to shoulder the cost of having Medicaid Eligibility Workers on site at their health centers--an annual expense to each FQHC of approximately $55,000-$60,000. Covering the cost of Medicaid eligibility workers would increase the community health workforce as well as increase the ratio of approved to processed applications. FQHC outreach workers are one of the most important links to hard to reach populations. The table below illustrates how changes in Medicaid policy and funding impact the numbers of screened, processed and enrolled clients at FQHCs. Funding required is $ 850,000.

CPCA HUSKY Enrollment 1994-2006

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

# of people screened for eligibility # of applications processed # of applications approved

1996 Welfare Reform Bill

1997 Governor signs S-CHIP

1998Enrollment efforts intensify statewide

2000 DSS funding to CPCA increased toenroll dual eligibles

DSS program improvements:2 month notice for renewals; simplified applic form; expansion to families/caregivers of HUSKY children

2003 Elimination of eligibility for some immigrants; elimination of continuous and presumptive eligibility for children; no guarantee of EPSDT; premiums imposed or increased; copays for preventive care and prescriptions

Cuts restored effective July 2004

Adult eligibility increased to 150% FPL; HUSKY B copays and premiums increased; self declaration of income eliminated; PE for children restored; effective July 2005

Sept 2006Gov. Rell appropriates $1 million for HUSKY outreach

of 2 ChimeData April 2007 A Program of the Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA)

Emergency Department Utilization April 2007

Fact Sheet

Trends & Challenges Connecticut hospital emergency departments (EDs) operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year – caring for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Twenty-five percent of Connecticut residents used a hospital ED in 2005; and between 2001 and 2005, ED utilization increased by nearly 10% – yet the population increased by only 2.3%. In 2005, there were more than 1.4 million visits to Connecticut hospital emergency departments; of these, 16% (225,809) required inpatient care (Exhibit 1). Approximately 60% of inpatients enter hospitals through the ED.

Exhibit 1

CHANGES IN ED UTILIZATION

191,286 225,809

1,204,4631,109,829

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2001 200

Num

ber o

f ED

Vis

its

5

ED Admits ED Treated and Went Home

1,301,115

Total Visits

1,430,272

Total Visits

Utilization by Medicaid/SAGA Beneficiaries Of those seeking care in Connecticut EDs, 38% are covered by private insurance; 26% are Medicaid/State-Administered General Assistance (SAGA) beneficiaries; 21% are Medicare beneficiaries; and 11% are uninsured (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2

Total ED Visits by Payor

Medicare21%

Private38%

Medicaid & SAGA26%

Uninsured11%

Other4%

Medicaid and SAGA beneficiaries, comprising 12% of the state’s population, utilize EDs at more than double the rate of the population as a whole. Further, as indicated in Exhibit 3:

Medicaid Managed Care recipients use the ED at a rate three times higher than the privately insured.

Medicaid Fee for Service (FFS) recipients use the ED at a rate four times higher than the privately insured.

SAGA recipients use the ED at a rate six times higher than the privately insured.

Exhibit 3

Total ED visits by Payor

Utilization Rate Compared to Privately Insured

1

43

6

22

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PrivatelyInsured

MedicaidFFS

MedicaidMngd Care

SAGA Medicare Uninsured

Rat

e

of 2 April 2007

Medicaid and SAGA beneficiaries make up 34% of ED patients treated for mental health/substance abuse. As indicated in Exhibit 4: Medicaid Managed Care recipients use

the ED for mental health/substance abuse at a rate three times higher than the privately insured.

Medicaid FFS recipients use the ED for mental health/substance abuse at a rate 13 times higher than the privately insured.

SAGA recipients use the ED for mental health/substance abuse at a rate 26 times higher than the privately insured.

Exhibit 4

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Visits by Payor

Utilization Rate Compared to Privately Insured

1

13

3

26

3 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

P rivate lyIns ured

Medica idFFS

Medica idMngd Care

SAGA Medicare Unins ured

Rat

e

Responding to Primary Care Needs Approximately 400,000 non-urgent visits occurred in the ED in FY 2005. Of these, 60% (245,000) occurred during the day. Medicaid beneficiaries are four times more likely than the privately insured to rely on the ED for non-urgent care. Earaches were the top reason for children (ages 0-17) to visit the ED during daytime hours; sixty-one percent (3,000) of these visits were covered by Medicaid. Many of these patients would be better served by primary care providers.

Additionally, 8,000 visits occurred during the day related to dental problems. Of these visits, 4,000 were Medicaid patients and 1,800 were uninsured. Implications Substantial ED resources currently are devoted to patients who do not require urgent care. Many of these patients have no health insurance or are enrolled in state-funded health insurance programs. This indicates that these patients may be receiving insufficient primary care (since they are seeking such treatment in emergency departments), and also are likely waiting until their condition worsens significantly before seeking care. Hospitals throughout the state are experiencing emergency department overcrowding, in part, as a result of the lack of primary care for the under- or uninsured. Providing care for non-urgent cases diverts limited resources away from treating patients with urgent conditions. This problem should be addressed by increasing access to primary care in Connecticut. ChimeData, an affiliate of the Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA), collects and analyzes hospital administrative discharge data from inpatient admissions, hospital-based outpatient surgery, and emergency department non-admissions. On a regular basis, ChimeData analyzes this data to identify trends and their implications on healthcare policy. The Chime database – the most comprehensive hospital database in the state – contains information on more than 27 million patient encounters dating back to 1980. To learn more about purchasing Chime data or having our team provide customized reports and analyses, please contact CHA Analysis Group at (203) 294-7333, by e-mail to [email protected], or visit our website www.cthosp.org.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cthosp.org/

The Impact of Community Health Centers &

Community-Affiliated Health Plans on Emergency Department Use

April 2007

Prepared by

Lina Choudhry Mackenzie Douglass

Jaclyn Lewis Courtney Howard Olson

Rachel Osterman Paras Shah

Appendix B 21

This publication was supported by Grant/Cooperative Agreement Number U30CS00209 from the Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Primary Health Care (HRSA/BPHC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the

authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HRSA/BPHC.

For more information, please contact:

Michelle Proser Director of Policy Research

Division of Federal, State, and Public Affairs National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc.

1400 Eye Street, NW Suite 330 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected]

Or

Peggy Oehlmann

Assistant Director for Quality Association for Community Affiliated Plans

1400 Eye Street, NW Suite 330 Washington, DC 20005

[email protected]

The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their contribution to this report:

James Glauber, Medical Director, Neighborhood Health Plan of Massachusetts Shira Gitomer, Policy Research Assistant, NACHC

Michael B. Glomb, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP Kristin Kopp, Media Relations Specialist, CareSource Management Group

Barbara Lay, CEO of Minnie Hamilton Health Care Center, Inc Lisa Mangiante, Director, Frequent Users of Health Services Initiative Project Office

Margaret Murray, Executive Director, Association for Community Affiliated Plans Deborah Peartree, Director Clinical Services, Monroe Plan for Medical Care

Roger Schwartz, Director of State Affairs, NACHC Michael Shababb, COO, North Hudson Community Action Corporation

Christine Sippl, Senior Health Services Manager, Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency Homeless Persons' Health Project

Appendix B 22


http://www.communityplans.net/


Executive Summary

American reliance on the hospital emergency department (ED) continues to soar, even though many of these visits can be prevented with timely access to primary care. When someone has a regular medical or health care home, they have a better chance at good health, which in turns generates cost savings to hospitals and payers. With mounting concerns over rising health care costs, Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income families, has increasingly been under the gun to produce cost savings. Rising rates of enrollment and expenditure growth, coupled with budget shortfalls, led every state and the District of Columbia to implement multiple strategies to control Medicaid spending over the last several years.

With fewer primary health care options at their disposal, many Americans are turning to EDs for non-urgent care or care that could have been avoided through timely use of primary care. ED visits are rising faster than population despite the fact that the actual number of EDs is declining. Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured patients are much more likely to rely on the ED for their ambulatory care compared to the privately insured, while the number of physician office visits for Medicaid and uninsured patients is dropping. This report finds that:

At least one-third of all ED visits are “avoidable”, meaning, non-urgent or ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) and therefore treatable in primary care settings.

Over $18 billion dollars are wasted annually for avoidable ED visits. One-third of hospitals report being on ambulance diversion sometime during the year.

Patients with a health care home are less likely to suffer a costly illness and go to the ED for care.

Implementing programs that redirect Medicaid patients to appropriate primary care settings rather than to the ED for ACS visits may produce significant savings for Medicaid.

Members of the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) and the Association of Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) provide access to primary care and serve similar populations, typically Medicaid beneficiaries and other low-income populations. NACHC represents the national network of Community, Migrant, and Homeless Health Centers, and ACAP represents 30 safety net health plans across 15 states that primarily serve Medicaid and SCHIP populations. Together health centers and Medicaid plans are critical threads in the health care safety net, working jointly to widen access to quality health care for vulnerable populations, such as Medicaid beneficiaries and the uninsured.

Health centers and Medicaid health plans are ideal partners in this initiative because their mission and focus is to improve the access to care and the overall health of beneficiaries by providing care in the most efficient manner possible.

Health centers could save Medicaid approximately $4 billion annually by reducing avoidable ED visits.

Patients served by health centers have fewer preventable ED visits than those in underserved areas without a health center.

The Medicaid health plan model improves care and reduces the ineffective use of resources.

The Medicaid health plan model has demonstrated cost savings even in times of soaring Medicaid costs.

Several case studies highlighted in this report underscore formal ED reduction programs between health

centers and hospitals or structured health plan initiatives targeting ED use can make a broad impact on the health care system as a whole. Collaboration between health centers, health plans, and hospitals will lead to a more cost effective and higher quality health care system. In order to cultivate the benefits of such programs, policy makers should:

1. Reinvest savings generated through reducing ED visits to the providers and plans bearing the cost of primary care.

2. Maintain and expand public insurance, given that having both insurance and a health care home most effectively improves outcomes and lowers costs.

3. Support health centers, safety net health plans, and other safety net providers in implementing health information technology to enable quality improvement efforts and ED reduction programs.

Appendix B 23

Introduction

Nationally, Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on one of the most costly sources of health care – the hospital emergency department (ED). The uninsured and Medicaid beneficiaries rely on the ED for more of their ambulatory care than the privately insured and Medicare beneficiaries, disproportionally affecting those EDs that already treat large numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients. Yet a significant percent of these visits are preventable through timely access to primary care, and programs that create medical or health care homes for frequent users of the ED can improve health outcomes and generate savings to hospitals and payers. Medicaid especially is in need of new cost-savings models of care. Although state budgets are slowly crawling out of shortfalls driven by a weakened economy, half of all states expected budget shortfalls in 2006. Continued Medicaid enrollment and expenditure growth, coupled by budget shortfalls, led every state and the District of Columbia to implement multiple strategies to control Medicaid spending over the last several years.1

With the recent media and political focus on ED overcrowding, the National Association of Community

Health Centers (NACHC) and Association of Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) sought to highlight effective ways to reduce ED utilization. NACHC represents the national network of community, migrant, and homeless health centers, and ACAP represents 30 safety net health plans across 15 states that primarily serve Medicaid and SCHIP populations. Together health centers and Medicaid plans are an integral part of the health care safety net, as both work to provide access to quality health care for vulnerable populations, such as Medicaid beneficiaries and the uninsured. ACAP health plans oversee care for over 4 million low income beneficiaries while health centers provide primary health care and other services for nearly 16 million2 patients. Because health centers and ACAP plans play similar roles in providing access to primary care and serve similar populations, including some of the same Medicaid patients, opportunities can be found in working together.

This issue brief details the ED overcrowding crisis, how access to patient-centered, regular, and

consistent primary care (i.e., a “medical home” or “health care home”) can ease ED overcrowding and generate savings for payers, and how health centers and ACAP plans stand ready to offer solutions to this crisis. This brief also provides examples of programs that health centers and health plans have established in order to reduce inappropriate and costly ED visits through providing access to primary care for Medicaid patients and the uninsured. This brief focuses mostly on formal diversion programs – that is, those programs where a defined relationship between a health center and a hospital or a structured health plan initiative targeting ED use exist. However, some of the case studies also highlight more informal diversion programs that promote broader system change (e.g., open access at primary care sites) as a vehicle for reducing ED use. This brief also includes several health center and ACAP plan case studies so that others may put similar programs into practice.

Easing Reliance on the Emergency Department Growing Demand for the ED

Demand for ED visits is on the rise and EDs are becoming overcrowded largely due to reduced inpatient

capacity and impaired patient flow. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there were 110.2 million visits to hospital EDs in 2004 – an increase of 18% over the last 10 years. This rise in ED visits occurred despite the fact that the number of hospital EDs in the US dropped by 12.4% over the same time.3 The Institute of Medicine reports that American ED visits grew more than twice as fast as population between 1993 and 2003, and that 60% of hospitals operated at or over capacity in 2001.4 Several factors likely contribute to the rise in ED use, such as the increase in elderly and chronically ill Americans, overworked or lack of primary care physicians, the lack of primary care beyond “normal” business hours, and patient preferences. Longer waiting times for physician appointments and higher numbers of physician visits relative to the number of community physicians actually increased ED use, especially among the poor. High ED use for non-urgent problems in some communities may also be driven by preference and habit. In

Appendix B 24

fact, people in high use communities receive a larger proportion of their outpatient care at the ED compared to those in low use communities, regardless of insurance, income, and race/ethnicity.5 Privately insured Americans are the major driver in increased visits to the ED, accounting for more than half the increase in visits between 1996-1997 and 2000-2001. Although the number of visits made by Medicaid patients did not change, these patients made fewer visits to physician offices over this time. In fact, 17.5% of all ambulatory care visits made by Medicaid beneficiaries in 2000-2001 were in the ED, compared to only 7.6% of all ambulatory care visits for the privately insured. The number of ED visits for the uninsured rose by about 10% between 1996-1997 and 2000-2001, and the number of uninsured physician office visits declined 37% during this period. By 2000-2001, the uninsured went to the ED for 25% of all their ambulatory care.6 Medicaid beneficiaries actually have twice the ED visit rates as the uninsured, and four times the rate of the privately insured.7 Moreover, communities with higher levels of ED use actually have fewer numbers of uninsured persons, Hispanics, and non-citizens compared to communities with low ED use.8 Although the uninsured may not be driving the increase in ED use, those who rely on the ED may do so because they lack a primary care provider. The uninsured often put off seeking care because of cost, thereby only turning to the ED when their conditions have seriously worsened. ED patients have also become older and sicker over the last dozen years, requiring more resources and staff time.9 The High Cost of Avoidable ED Visits

At least one-third of all ED visits are “avoidable” in that they were non-urgent or ambulatory care

sensitive (ACS) and therefore treatable in primary care settings.10 Some researchers estimate that the percent of visits considered avoidable is actually much higher. Billings et al found that roughly 75% of all visits to New York City EDs were avoidable,11 previous studies from the National Center for Health Statistics found that as many as 55% of ED visits were non-urgent,12 and two studies in Utah found that 44% of all visits were primary care sensitive and between 40 and 60% of all ED visits for children were non-urgent.13 Medicaid beneficiaries and the uninsured also account for more avoidable ED visits. EDs serving higher proportions of patients that are Medicaid eligible or uninsured have 25% more non-urgent cases presenting, 10% more emergent conditions presenting that are primary care treatable, and fewer injury and unavoidable emergent conditions presenting compared to other EDs.14 In Utah, Medicaid enrollees in 2001 accounted for 56.9% of all ambulatory care sensitive ED visits among all payers.15 The ED is a more costly form of care than primary care settings. In fact, ED charges for minor, non-urgent problems may be two to five times higher than charges for a typical private physician office visit.16 Often, non-urgent ED visits and generally those that are ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) could be more appropriately treated in a primary care setting, where care is more affordable, timely, and appropriate. According to a recent NACHC estimate detailed in Appendix A, over $18 billion dollars are wasted annually for ED visits that are non-urgent or primary care treatable and could have been treated in a health center.17 This figure takes into account the total number of ED visits by state and assumes that 35% of all ED visits are avoidable – a conservative estimate given the literature cited above. It also considers average expenditure for an emergency room visit by region and average cost health center medical visit. Thus it estimates the excess health care expenditures spent nationally that could have been prevented. Appendix A displays the amount each state spends in avoidable ED visits annually. Four states, including California, Florida, New York, and Texas all spend over a billion dollars annually. These states and three others (Illinois, Ohio, and Washington) make up 40% of the $18 billion in annual wasted expenditures nationally.

Overcrowding and increasing demand for the ED not only drive increasing health care expenditures, they also affect quality of care. Overcrowded EDs experiencing high rates of ACS and preventable visits are forced to spread thin their resources, threatening health care quality.18 At least a third of all hospitals reported being on ambulance diversion sometime during the year, generally because of lack of available inpatient beds and crowded EDs. In addition, 44.9% report experiencing ED crowding sometime between 2003 and 2004.19 ED wait times are rising, and are much higher than those in primary care settings such as health centers. This increase in wait time also lowers patient perceptions of ED care quality.20

Appendix B 25

Health Care Homes As a Solution to the ED Crisis and Growing Medicaid Expenditures

Having a health care home – a health care practice where a patient receives the majority of his or her health care in a regular, continuous, and patient-centered manner – improves health outcomes and controls the cost of care. Patients with a health care home are less likely to have a costlier illness at a later date21 and go to the emergency room for health care.22 Having a health care home is also associated with improved access to and use of primary care, better management of chronic diseases, more cancer screenings for women, and even fewer lawsuits against emergency rooms.23 Studies have consistently shown that having a regular provider is a better predictor of seeking care than having insurance alone, and having both make the greatest impact on health care outcomes.24 Accordingly, expanding access to health care homes is best done in conjunction with expanding access to insurance. The consequences of not having a regular provider impact the surrounding community in a variety of ways: elevated infant and childhood illness and mortality rates, over-utilization of emergency rooms and other inappropriate providers for primary care services, and hospitalization rates for preventable conditions that are significantly higher than the national average. Furthermore, access to primary care may contribute to removing the severe adverse impact of income inequalities on health. Despite these advantages, over 50 million Americans do not have access to a usual source of care because of a lack of or inequitable distribution of primary care physicians.25

Implementing programs that redirect Medicaid patients to appropriate primary care settings rather than to the ED for primary care sensitive visits may produce significant savings for Medicaid. More providers must be available to those who rely on the ED for care. A drop in Medicaid participation among physicians increases the probability of ED use among Medicaid/SCHIP adults. Moreover, reductions in health center capacity resulting from Medicaid/SCHIP revenue loss increase slightly the probability of ED visits for Medicaid/SCHIP adults and children. Creating programs that direct Medicaid patients to primary care sources would create a more efficient health care delivery system, and would produce greater cost savings than Medicaid enrollment reductions.26 In passing the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005, Congress recognized the cost savings that health care homes can generate for Medicaid, particularly in their ability to reduce inappropriate and avoidable ED visits. The DRA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Emergency Room Demonstration Program for the establishment of “alternate non-emergency service providers…or networks of such providers” and includes a “health care clinic” and a “community health center” among the various providers that meet that definition. To fund this effort, Congress provided for up to $50 million in grant funds for a 4 year period, and specified that HHS must provide preference to States that establish or provide for alternate non-emergency services providers that (1) serve rural or undeserved areas in which recipients may not have regular access to providers of primary care services or (2) to providers that are in partnership with local community hospitals.27 At the time of writing this issue brief, final guidelines for this program had not been released by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. The DRA indicates that only state Medicaid agencies will be allowed to submit grant applications. However, it appears as there will be substantial flexibility for participation by other types of entities. Since the DRA language specifies that “networks of providers” may be eligible to receive part of the grant funds, NACHC and ACAP will also monitor the guidelines and distribute them to Primary Care Associations, health centers, and ACAP members when they are published.

The Role of Health Centers

Federally-Qualified Health Centers are non-profit, community-based health care providers that serve nearly 16 million people annually through over 5000 service delivery sites across the nation. Health centers successfully overcome barriers to care because they are located in high-need areas, are open to all residents, offer services that facilitate access to care such as outreach and transportation, and tailor their services to their communities’ unique cultural and health needs. Through high quality, cost effective care, health centers reduce health disparities, improve birth outcomes, effectively manage chronic diseases, and stimulate economic growth

Appendix B 26

in the community.28 A commitment to patient involvement in healthcare delivery through community boards remains a key aspect of the health center model.

Health center patients are some of the nation’s most vulnerable individuals; 92% of health center

patients are low income and 71% of health center patients have family incomes at or below poverty ($16,090 annual income for a family of three in 2005), as displayed in Figure 1. As demonstrated in Figure 2, 40% of health center patients are uninsured and another 36% depend on Medicaid. In addition, nearly two-thirds of health center patients are racial and ethnic minorities, shown in Figure 3. Roughly half of health center patients live in economically depressed inner city communities and the other half reside in rural areas.

Figure 1

Health Center Patients By Income Level, 2005

100% FPL and Below

70.8%

101-150% FPL 14.2%

151-200% FPL 6.6%

Over 200% FPL 8.5%

Note: Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a family of three in 2005 was $16,090. (See http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml.) Based on percent known. Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, DHHS, 2005 Uniform Data System

Figure 2

Health Center Patients By Insurance Status, 2005

Medicaid/SCHIP35.5%

Private14.8%

Uninsured39.8%Medicare

7.5%

Other Public2.3%

Note: Other Public may include non-Medicaid SCHIP. Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, DHHS, 2005 Uniform Data System

Figure 3

Health Center Patients By Race/Ethnicity, 2005

Asian/Pacific Islander

3.4%

White36.4%

Hispanic/Latino36.1%

African American

23.0%

American Indian/Alaska Native

1.1%

Note: Based on percent known. Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, DHHS, 2005 Uniform Data System

Numerous studies document that health centers reduce ED visits. Patients in underserved areas served

by these centers had 5.8 fewer preventable hospitalizations per 1,000 people over three years than those in underserved areas not served by a health center.29 Greater health center capacity is associated with declines in ED use,30 and uninsured people living within close proximity to health center are less likely to have an unmet medical need, less likely to have postponed or delayed seeking needed care, more likely to have had a general medical visit, significantly less likely to have had an emergency room visit, and less likely to have a hospital stay compared to other uninsured persons.31 Further increasing access to health centers for more patients can significantly reduce current rates of non-urgent and avoidable ED use, and have the largest impact on medically underserved populations. These medically vulnerable patients relying on EDs are exactly who health centers target for continuous and effective primary care.

Health centers produce significant savings to Medicaid through reduced ED visits, as well as fewer hospitalizations and specialty care visits, generally saving as much as 30% per Medicaid patient when compared to Medicaid patients treated elsewhere. In fact, regular users of health centers in New York were associated with significantly fewer ED visits – about 50% less than non-users. 32 One study using Medicaid claims data on ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) from five states found that health center Medicaid patients were significantly less likely to visit EDs and were more likely to have at least one primary care office visit when compared to Medicaid beneficiaries treated elsewhere. These additional visits did not offset possible savings from ACSC avoidable events.33 A more recent study analyzing Medicaid claims data in four states concluded that Medicaid beneficiaries relying on health centers for usual care are 19% less likely to use the ED for ACSCs than Medicaid beneficiaries using outpatient and office-based physicians for usual care.34 These studies also serve as a measure of quality, as ACSCs are avoidable through timely primary care.

Although health centers have been shown to reduce ED visits, the fact that they currently serve 1 in 9

Medicaid beneficiaries implies that there is potential to generate more savings to Medicaid. In an issue brief from the National Health Policy Forum on overcrowded emergency departments, one avenue for reducing demand identifies health centers for their ability to expand primary care access.35 Health centers not only reduce the crowds at EDs by serving as an alternative source of care, but they also save money for the healthcare system at large by providing a cost effective health care home for many uninsured and publicly insured individuals.36 Considering that approximately $18.4 billion is wasted annually on ED visits that should have been seen in primary care settings, and given that Medicaid patients make up 22% of all ED visits,37 health centers could save Medicaid approximately $4 billion annually by providing primary care services to Medicaid beneficiaries at a health center instead of in an ED. Health center success is partly attributed to their enabling

Appendix B 27

services, such as case management, transportation, translation/interpretation services, and health education, many of which are unavailable from private physician offices. By meeting a broad base of patient needs in a consistent and easily-accessible manner, health centers provide care to underserved patients and those with complex, chronic conditions, deterring them from costlier avenues of care.

The Role of Community-Affiliated Health Plans Community-affiliated health plans are important providers of health care homes for Medicaid

beneficiaries. The 30 members of ACAP are mission-driven organizations that partner with providers, beneficiaries, and state Medicaid agencies, have strong relationships with other community health care providers (such as health centers) and work with community-based providers to improve the health of the populations they serve. They act as navigators and coordinators for their enrollees, improving access to needed care. Low income populations that are either uninsured or in Medicaid fee-for-service often find access to specialty care difficult. Health plans are able to contract with specialist providers and facilitate better access for Medicaid enrollees.38 As such, health plans can play a key role in improving access to primary and specialty care for their Medicaid patients in ways that even safety net providers find difficult. In fact, the availability of health plans reduces avoidable ED visits, illustrating the potential of health plans to direct their Medicaid clients to the appropriate provider for their health care needs.39

ACAP health plans serve their local communities, build long-term partnerships with their state agencies,

and bring the cost-saving principles of managed care to public health insurance programs. Many of the health plans in ACAP were originally started by local safety net providers, including health centers and public hospitals. Because of their ties to the community and their not-for-profit status, the plans typically reinvest their operating margins in programs that improve access to care at the local level, create efficiencies in the delivery of health services and, increasingly, seek to reduce unnecessary use of EDs.

While health plans have done much to improve access to primary care for Medicaid enrollees, use of the

ED for primary care continues to be higher among low income Medicaid populations than in commercial health plans.40 One reason is that Medicaid beneficiaries often have trouble accessing specialty care, and this can contribute to higher ED rates in the Medicaid population. Many specialists do not accept Medicaid patients – a particularly problematic circumstance given that Medicaid beneficiaries disproportionately suffer from chronic illnesses and often require greater specialty care.41 Some safety net providers report that Medicaid beneficiaries seek ED services because emergency departments offer relatively easier access to specialists. ACAP health plans have tried to address this problem by cultivating relationships with specialty providers and establishing networks of specialists available to health plan members. In a 2004 study of its members, ACAP found that the health plans had created partnerships with specialty providers by improving payment practices and communication as well as simplifying administrative burdens.42

Community affiliated health plans can play an important role in both improving care and reducing the

ineffective use of resources. The Lewin Group’s 2004 study found that the Medicaid health plan model typically yielded cost savings in the range of 2 to 19% – a particularly noteworthy feat during a time of soaring Medicaid costs.43 A separate study confirmed the cost effectiveness of not-for-profit plans, finding that not-for-profit plans spend more of each premium dollar on medical expenses than their for-profit counterparts and spend less on administrative expenses.44

Not-for-profit health plans have also had historically better outcomes in key measures of quality

performance. A study from Harvard Medical School compared a total of 329 not-for-profit versus investor-owned health plans, and found that investor-owned plans had lower rates for all 14 quality of care indicators. For patients discharged from the hospital after a myocardial infarction, 70.6% of not-for-profit patients filled a prescription for beta blockers vs. only 59.2% of patients in investor-owned HMOs. Not-for-profits also had higher scores on all routine preventative services in the study. For example, the immunization completion rate for 2-year olds in not-for-profit plans averaged 72.3% vs. 63.9% for investor-owned plans.45

Appendix B 28

In addition to their not-for-profit status and community affiliation, a recent paper published by ACAP

highlights key areas in which ACAP plans have partnered with safety net providers such as community health centers to improve care for low-income populations.46 Typically, these partnerships have focused on ACAP plans providing support in four key areas: spending on health care services provided by safety net providers, additional financial and in-kind investments to safety net providers, a commitment to the uninsured, and plan leadership as conveners of safety net stakeholders focused on addressing the health care crises of vulnerable populations.

A 2004 survey of ACAP members found that a median of 45% of their beneficiaries use health center-

based providers.47 Many Medicaid health plans already coordinate with safety net providers for initiatives aimed at managing chronic diseases, sharing financial data, and jointly developing outcome measures. The same cooperation can be extended to ED diversion efforts, such as in the Monroe Plan case study highlighted below. ACAP health plans are ideal partners in these initiatives because, like health centers and other safety net providers, they are motivated to improve the access to care and the overall health of beneficiaries by providing care in the most efficient manner possible.

Case Studies: Examples of Health Center and Plan Initiatives to Reduce Avoidable ED Visits

The following case studies examine three health centers and three health plans that have worked to

redirect inappropriate ED visits to primary care settings. The descriptions are based on July 2006 interviews of health center and health plan chief executives, medical directors, and quality management staff. The health centers described a range of strategies for reducing ED use including, but not limited to, case management, triage, hospital/health center partnerships, and alternative sites for patients to seek care. ACAP health plans, meanwhile, described programs that include working closely with local hospitals and health centers, creating incentives for doctors to stay open on weekends and in the evening, educating members about self-care and creating nurse triage programs. While every program reflects the local priorities of the community served, all of the ED reduction efforts share the goal of improving access to primary and preventive care. Furthermore, all offer strategies for alleviating overcrowded emergency departments and improving the quality of care delivered. Nonetheless, it is important to note that each community is different, and so what may work for one case study may not be feasible for the community and patients of health centers and plans elsewhere.

What follows is only a handful of health center and health plan experiences. Other health centers are

actively engaged in formal hospital or regional partnerships to mitigate inappropriate ED use. These activities include providing case management activities as part of Healthy Communities Access Program grants, creating care coordination programs for frequent users of ED services, renting space within a hospital to deliver primary care, implementing nurse triage call lines, and utilizing electronic referral systems to direct patients from the ED to health centers and make follow up appointments. Health centers also reduce ED visits by their very design – providing culturally appropriate primary care to populations who would otherwise go without, using “open access scheduling” to see patients that day and reduce missed scheduled appointments, staying open evenings and weekends, and offering health education, transportation, and outreach. However, formal partnerships and programs are necessary in order to ease ED overcrowding and provide substantial savings to payers, patients, and communities. Additional ways that health plans try to improve primary care access and reduce ED use include: providing transportation services to decrease missed appointments, identifying “frequent users” of EDs and offering targeted case management services, and development of disease management programs for high ED use diagnoses, such as asthma.

Appendix B 29

Reaching the Rural Minnie Hamilton Health Care Center, West Virginia

Minnie Hamilton Health Care Center (MHHCC)48 is located in rural Calhoun County, West Virginia, an area with the state’s highest unemployment rate and where more than 32% of the population is living at or below the federal poverty limit. MHHCC is unique in that the health center took over Calhoun General Hospital (CGH) in 1996 and integrated primary, emergency, hospital, and outpatient care in their service area. The start-up funding to merge the hospital with MHHCC came from three main sources: patient services, cash flow, and a one-time Housing and Urban Development (HUD) infrastructure grant for $500,000. The hospital today is a 43-bed facility and has five ED rooms, two of which are cardiac/trauma rooms. This unique model of combining hospital and health center services aims to expand services while assuring continuity of care for those in the community.

Since acquiring the hospital, the health center has experienced its largest patient growth since its

establishment in 1983. Patient encounters increased dramatically at the health center, rising from an average of 350 per month in 1996 to an average of 4950 per month in 2006. The health center reports that the increase in health center patients was driven primarily by extended primary care hours as the health center operates between 8am and 11pm.

While meeting the community’s needs for primary health care, hospital, and emergency services,

MHHCC looked to decrease costs and deliver more effective care in the ED. In this isolated mountainous region of West Virginia there is an overall lack of primary care providers. This lack of access to care means that people come from miles around hoping to find a provider to address their health care needs. This is especially true for emergency visits since the ED is the only place in the region for care open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In this community only four out of every 40 ED walk-ins are “true trauma” cases, so the health center decided to take action to reduce those avoidable ED visits.

After acquiring the hospital, the health center targeted avoidable ED visits by triaging patients in the ED

and sending them to the health center if and when appropriate. Patients are triaged by a nurse who assesses their physical and emotional symptoms to determine if they are stable enough to be seen during regular clinic hours. When patients present to the ED, about 52% are deemed stable by the triage nurse and are classified as clinic patients to be seen during regular health center business hours (8am-11pm); otherwise, they are seen in the ED department. MHHCC hopes to decrease avoidable visits to the ED, provide people with a health care home, and increase continuity of primary and preventive care services to fully realize potential cost savings and improve quality of care.

MHHCC reports that the triage program has been a “modest success,” resulting in a 15% decrease in

ED-classified patients over the past four years. The health center attributes this success to the triage system and the advantages of seeing patients in the primary care wing of the health center over the ED. The drop in avoidable, ambulatory care sensitive ED visits actually represents a shift of patients to the health center primary care services. While the health center has saved money on patient supplies, the increased staff required for nurse triage has offset those savings. Thus they have not documented any losses or cost savings, but the program strives to prevent further cost increases in light of national trends of increasing ED costs. MHHCC has seen improvements in access to care and in utilization of the health center as a health care home. Striving for Solutions North Hudson Community Action Corporation, New Jersey

The North Hudson Community Action Corporation (NHCAC),49 located in Northern Hudson County,

New Jersey, has been a federally-qualified health center (FQHC) since 1994 and provides care for those in the greater Northern New Jersey area. The health center has seven sites which offer an array of services including adult medicine, pediatrics, dental, prenatal and obstetrics and gynecology, family planning, mental health, and substance abuse treatment. The health center serves a diverse patient base with 86% Hispanic, 10% White, and

Appendix B 30

4% other including Middle Eastern Americans and Asian Americans. The patient insurance base of NHCAC is approximately 40% uninsured, 55% Medicaid, and 5% commercial insurance or Medicare.

NHCAC and Palisades Medical Center, a nearby non-profit hospital, have a history of working in

partnership on many community projects. NHCAC earned FQHC status following an $180,000 grant to evaluate whether the area was in high need of medical care, and Palisades Medical Center aided in the grant writing process. In 1995, the health center and Palisades Medical Center teamed up again in an attempt to reduce ED use. One of their first efforts included reaching out to ED patients by leaving business cards at the front desk for follow-up appointments. This proved ineffective in luring patients, and that attempt soon ended.

In a second attempt the following year, NHCAC and Palisades Medical Center address the health care needs of the underinsured and uninsured by focusing on frequent users of the ED. The hospital and the health center formally contract annually for health center services. The need for this program is clear – 47% of all New Jersey ED visits not admitted to the hospital are potentially avoidable.50

All ED patients are first triaged and stabilized by a triage nurse, in accordance with the requirements of

the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).51 Uninsured and Medicaid patients are then seen by the on-call health center doctor if medically necessary, and billed as health center patients. Health center doctors provide care within the hospital through a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on-call service for Pediatrics and OB/GYN; one physician is on the floor in each department at a time. The hospital pays the health center monthly to contract these health center physicians. The health center in turn contracts five obstetricians totaling $750,000, and 5-6 pediatricians $500,000 to provide these services. Privately insured patients are also seen by the health center doctor if a patient’s private physician is unavailable, and the health center does not bill them as agreed to in the contact with the hospital. Instead, the health center is paid for on call coverage.

The program aims to improve and establish continuity of care among patients who would normally rely

on the ED. For example, many of the patients who come to the health center for prenatal care can then have their baby delivered at the hospital with the same physician. Furthermore, the health center pediatrician makes rounds in the nursery; thus, the same pediatrician later sees the child for primary care visits at the health center.

In addition, this program seeks to improve timely follow-up care for those seen in the ED; the health

center established relationships with two local EDs (Christ Hospital and Palisades Medical Center) to provide patient follow-up appointments at the health center. NHCAC reserves approximately five appointment slots a day from 1-3 pm for follow-up ED visits at their health center sites, and when necessary, efforts are made to schedule patients for an appointment two to three days after their ED visit. NHCAC is planning a computer linkage with Christ Hospital so that appointments can be scheduled directly. The health center expects this project to be running soon. Although Palisades’ staff relies on phone scheduling at the moment, a planned computer system will also eventually link the hospital and health center.

As a result of their relationship, Palisades Medical Center and NHCAC both reported that ED

overcrowding decreased and receipt of continuous primary care improved. The decreased waiting time in the ED is a specific example of success, attributed to health care available six days a week with evening hours until 7 pm.

The health center identified several challenges, including patient education about their services, to

improving the effectiveness of the program and to ensure its continued success. It is especially challenging for uninsured patients to see specialists at the hospital as these physicians do not receive adequate reimbursement when treating uninsured patients. While hospital charity care pays for uninsured visits to the ED, the uninsured visits to hospital specialists are not covered by charity care. The lack of payment for the uninsured who need specialty care makes accessing these services difficult, and NHCAC estimates that a significant proportion of the uninsured need specialty services. The health center has not yet overcome the challenge of access to specialty care for uninsured patients, but they are working to find a model that best fits their patients’ needs.

Appendix B 31

To address these issues, some NHCAC sites are open until 8pm, and the health center hopes that other sites will soon be open that late in order to provide primary care when their patients need it. NHCAC and other New Jersey health centers are also striving to bridge the specialty care gap, access the funds for other services or tests necessary for proper diagnoses, and generate additional revenue for health center programs. Creativity and Consortium The County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency, California

The County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency, a public health department also funded as a Federally-Qualified Health Center through its Health Care for the Homeless Program, is home base for one of six projects funded through the “Frequent Users of Health Services Initiative.”52 Jointly sponsored by The California Endowment and the California HealthCare Foundation, this Initiative is a 5-year, $10 million project to address ED overcrowding by frequent users. During its two funding cycles (2003 and 2004), the Initiative successfully focused on promoting access to health care homes and the coordination of medical and psychosocial services for frequent user patients with multiple, complex needs.

“Frequent users,” as defined by the Initiative and individually by each of the projects, are patients

repeatedly cycling through the ED, typically anywhere from four to as many as thirty or more visits per year. While making up a small portion of all those who use EDs, frequent users have a significant impact on health costs. Among the patients served by this program, most are uninsured or underinsured, and often affected by multiple, co-occurring disorders, including untreated chronic diseases, mental health disorders, substance abuse disorders and homelessness. These patients typically need individualized assistance and intensive support to effectively utilize Medicaid and other resources.

The Initiative funded six programs in 2004 through a competitive grant process. Each program is autonomous in scope and process, but the programs generally focus on a similar population of ED frequent users. The individual programs try to break down barriers to access as well as coordinate care across providers and systems. Multi-disciplinary services are provided directly or by linking patients to other providers or services, including benefits advocacy, supportive housing, mental health services and drug and alcohol treatment programs. Coordination across systems allows case managers to track their patients’ use of the ED and more adequately meet their needs.

Identifying causes of frequent ED use provided groundwork for designing the programs. Some of these

causes include complex medical and non-medical delivery systems, lack of integrated services, categorical funding streams, limited access to both primary and specialty services, and lack of care continuity and service coordination following hospital discharge. Obstacles to healthcare for low income patients who face chronic health conditions are compounded by psychosocial risk factors and the need for a broad array of services.

The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency operates Project Connect, the Initiative’s first funded

implementation project.53 Project Connect specifically targets the frequent users of the county’s two emergency departments – one at Dominican Hospital and the other at Watsonville Community Hospital – and provides a broad range of community-based health and related services via case management. The program employs a modified version of the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) case management model. This comprehensive case management model has been found to be particularly useful for mental health and criminal justice patients. The National Institute of Justice describes the ACT Case Management model as “delivering services aggressively to the client, rather than passively offering services in a centralized office setting [and] may require the case manager to seek out the client in his or her home, job or community for meetings and counseling.”54 Patients are assigned to a lead case manager/social worker but receive support and services from multiple members of the interdisciplinary team, which includes a public health nurse and a nurse practitioner. Patients also benefit from chronic disease management, consistent preventive care, and access to social services integrated with medical care. For example, mental health, substance abuse, and housing issues are addressed in addition to the provision of care for medical conditions such as diabetes.

Appendix B 32

Supporting frequent ED users – through the establishment of a primary care home and a good relationship with a primary care provider – is an essential part of the project. Moreover, Project Connect prioritizes providing frequent ED users who are homeless access to affordable housing with integrated support services. In fact, Project Connect has helped develop two local, newly funded HUD housing programs for this population since the project was initiated. Furthermore, the case managers are individuals with cultural and linguistic sensitivity, and Health Care for the Homeless program health outreach workers collaborate with the project.

Each of the six programs within the larger Initiative provides data for an Initiative-wide evaluation

effort and some also collect data of their own. Preliminary data for Project Connect demonstrate a reduction in ED visits among frequent users at both partnering hospitals. As of March 2006, Project Connect was tracking changes in utilization among 78 adults who were referred by one or both of the hospitals, enrolled in the project with a minimum of 5 ED visits (with a range of 5-63) in the most recent 12-month period, and had one or more of the following co-occurring health issues: a mental health disorder, a substance abuse disorder, an unmanaged chronic illness and/or homelessness. In the year prior to enrollment these 78 patients were responsible for a total of 785 visits to the ED. Project Connect recorded a 51% reduction in ED visits for the group in the 12 months following enrollment in the project. The number of hospital inpatient days and ambulance transports for these patients also decreased 50% and 47%, respectively.55 The Project calculated an annual cost avoidance of $803,946 as a result of a combined reduction in ED visits, hospital inpatient days and ambulance transports for the first 78 individuals enrolled in the project. The project has now grown to include 106 individuals.

The five year Initiative program ends in 2007. Each of the individual programs, including Project

Connect, is identifying and implementing sustainability strategies to ensure the continuation of effective strategies and programs. Most plan to pursue a combination of public and private funding, other grants, and the potential to generate reimbursement revenue for care and case management services provided to the population. The long-term goals of the Initiative include the collection of valuable data in order to bring about policy changes and to expand the national effort of providing quality care for vulnerable populations. CareSource Ohio CareSource Management Group – Ohio and Michigan

CareSource is a nonprofit Medicaid managed health care plan serving Medicaid consumers in Ohio for more than 17 years. The company provides services through a contract with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The majority of CareSource's more than 520,000 members are women and young children.

Like many Medicaid health plans, CareSource has experienced rising Emergency Department (ED)

utilization. This increase, according to the health plan's data, coincided with a decrease in visits to primary care physicians. Data also showed many members were going to EDs at times when primary care offices are not open, such as on weekends or at night – often for non-urgent diagnoses. To assist members in appropriate care decisions, CareSource piloted an Emergency Department Diversion (EDD) Program that focused on educating members on proper usage of ED visits, urgent care visits and Primary Care Provider visits.

In 2004, CareSource set up a collaborative partnership with Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio,

The hospital agreed to provide patients' medical records to CareSource within 24 hours after a visit, enabling CareSource nurses to follow up with the patients to ensure they fill their prescriptions, enroll in relevant disease management programs and arrange follow-up doctor appointments.

In addition to this partnership, CareSource expanded its Case Management and Outreach program – care

managers who are responsible for members’ care coordination, discharge planning and patient education. CareSource EDD screeners place next-day phone calls to members who frequently visit Miami Valley Hospital’s emergency room – both for urgent and non-urgent reasons. The EDD screeners contact members who go to the emergency room for non-urgent reasons to inform them of the health plan’s 24-hour nurse triage line and how to reach their primary care physician. For those members who utilized emergency rooms other

Appendix B 33

than Miami Valley’s, EDD screeners attempt to reach the members at home if the member has been to the ED two or more times over a six month period. CareSource’s case management department works in conjunction with provider relations staff to educate providers who have a large number of members who are identified as frequent emergency department utilizers.

The company also increased its focus on providing 24-hour access to a nurse through CareSource 24, its

24-hour nurse triage line. CareSource 24 was implemented in August 2002 to bring this competency in-house to better serve the unique needs of CareSource members. CareSource staff was trained not only to triage and direct members to the appropriate level of care, but also to assist them in fully utilizing their benefits. In addition to educating members about their benefits, CareSource staff helps coordinate their care and assists them in navigating the health care system. A study was done to compare the level of care recommended by the external vendor that CareSource used and the level of care recommended by the CareSource 24 staff. Because the in-house triage staff was more familiar with available resources and had direct connections to other departments within the company, members were directed to an emergency room less often than when they had called the external vendor. This demonstrated a positive link between CareSource 24 and a reduction in appropriate emergency room use.

Another measurable result is the number of members who sought a less-intensive level of care after receiving assessment and education from a nurse. Ongoing comparison studies illustrate the benefits of reducing unnecessary emergency room visits and medical costs. The study compares members who were planning an ER visit that were directed to a more appropriate level of care by the nurse. Those members who were successfully diverted to less intense level of services are determined through claims comparison. In the first two quarters of 2006, the nurse triage line diverted 68 percent (4,751) of 6,990 callers planning to visit the emergency room to a more appropriate level of care. The result -- $992,739 in emergency room cost savings.

Outcomes of the project include:

• Real time notification of ED visits • Identification of legitimate ED visits • Increased coordination of care • Immediate identification of members in need of case management services • More detailed information regarding reasons for ED visits • Increased knowledge of CareSource benefits for members • Increased physician communication and involvement in member care • Identification of potential new ED Diversion Program members

CareSource is examining additional ways to combat ED overuse, such as:

• Creating incentives for primary care doctors to keep their offices open later during the week and

on weekends, as well as creating a bonus incentive for doctors whose patient ED usage declines. • Implementing physician and patient profiles allowing doctors to know how they compare to

their peers in pharmaceutical and ED usage. Patient profiles would document whether patients fill their prescriptions and would then be made available to their primary care providers.

The EDD pilot project began as a partnership with hospitals to identify members who use the emergency department for non-emergent health issues and channel them to more appropriate settings. The pilot project has allowed CareSource staff to obtain more detailed information and to identify legitimate ED visits. For members who need further assistance, individual care management plans are formulated, ensuring continuity of care and increased member satisfaction. CareSource’s goal is to encourage our members to use their primary care physicians as their “medical home”.

Appendix B 34

Monroe Plan for Medical Care- Rochester, New York Monroe Plan for Medical Care serves 88,000 Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries in the Greater

Rochester area of upstate New York. In 2003, Monroe worked with other community entities to create the Re-Weaving the Safety Net program, which links poor Rochester residents with needed health care and social support services. As part of this program, they launched the Clinical Transformation Project, which uses concepts developed by the Institute for Health Care Improvement to redesign patient care.56 A key component of IHI’s approach is the use of collaboratives, which bring together different provider groups all interested in pursuing the same clinical goal and ask them to conduct individual pilot projects to improve outcomes at their specific provider sites, and then meet periodically to share ideas, discuss common barriers, and brainstorm solutions.

Using a modified “collaborative” model, Monroe provides practice support to 13 different practice sites, the bulk of which are either health centers or health center based physician practices. Specifically, Monroe has worked with these practices to provide “open access” so patients can receive same-day treatment, even for non-acute visits. “Open access” refers to the ability of a patient to call and schedule an appointment on the same day they call. It requires most practices to redesign their ability to meet their patient's demand for same day appointments. Open access often results in a significant decrease in “no show” appointments - because patients call when they have a need, means, and support (child care /transportation) to make it to an appointment.

Monroe considers their program a modified collaborative model because the health plan devotes

dedicated staff time to manage the collaborative and health plan staff generally provide more support to the practice sites than do typical IHI collaborative models. Monroe plan staff attend weekly meetings of the practice site teams as well as the monthly collaborative meetings. Monroe has found providers that primarily serve safety net populations may have resource constraints and/or institutional barriers that are difficult to overcome without a champion at the health plan level that can provide support, encouragement and facilitation.

The practices that have converted to “open access” have seen a significant decrease in ED use among their patients. While the practices that are part of this collaborative had similar ED use to the rest of Monroe’s provider network when the open access collaborative first started in the 4th quarter of 2005, they have yielded significant decreases in ED use/1000 while the rest of Monroe’s network has seen an increase. Monroe Plan is working with 3 additional practices to start new Open Access collaboratives.

ED Rate per 1000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

4th Quarter, 2005 1st Quarter, 2006 2nd Quarter, 2006 3rd Quarter, 2006

ED V

isits

/100

0

Clinically Transformed Practices All other Practices in Monroe County

Source: Monroe Plan for Medical Care, Inc.

Appendix B 35

Neighborhood Health Plan of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts

Neighborhood Health Plan of Massachusetts serves 127,000 Medicaid enrollees across the state of

Massachusetts. Faced with financial losses in 2002, Neighborhood Health Plan in Massachusetts set out to reduce overall medical expenses. Like many Medicaid health plans, NHP had experienced high and growing levels of ED use. Members were visiting EDs for ailments as abdominal pain, headaches, urinary tract infections and back pain. NHP hoped to reduce non-emergent ED use by changing patient behavior, connecting patients with their primary care doctors and enabling patients to make informed decisions about appropriate ED use.

NHP made a conscious decision to pursue broad-based outreach strategies instead of focusing solely on

ED “frequent users”, those who use the ED five or more times per year. NHP conducted a frequency distribution of members’ ED visits and found that 80 percent of trips to the emergency room are made by patients who use the ER three or less times a year. Ninety percent of visits are made by patients who go to EDs six times a year or less and the “frequent user” population accounts for just 10 percent of all ED visits. A separate Massachusetts study – this one conducted by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy – had similar findings. The study found that frequent users dramatically reduced their ED visits after a year of heavy use. Of frequent users in 2002, 28.4% remained frequent users the following year, 46.5 percent became occasional users and a quarter did not visit EDs at all the following year. According to the study, by the time frequent users have made all those visits, there is more than a 66% chance that they are not going to remain high ED utilizers.57 Based on this information, NHP decided against targeting the frequent user population because they often have other severe medical and/or psycho-social needs. As such, their ED patterns can be extremely difficult to change.

NHP began sending quarterly reports to health centers and physician practices on their patients’ ED use.

The reports identify patients who have visited the ER in the last year, how many visits they had and for what diagnoses – highlighting those who have not had primary care visits in more than a year. The quarterly reports draw attention to practices with high ED use, and indicate which patients who have gone more than a year without a primary care visit. Along with the reports, the health plan instituted an additional fee-for-service payment designed to give physicians greater incentives for seeing their patients for urgent and illness-related care. This includes additional fees for doctor appointments that fall outside of normal business hours – with the goal of rewarding providers that extend access to after-hours, weekend, and urgent care in the office.

Patient education, meanwhile, comes in the form of “What To Do When Your Child Gets Sick,”58 a

self-help book written at a 5th-6th grade level in both Spanish and English. NHP began distributing the book to every member identified as pregnant. The health plan also markets the book to families whose children have made non-emergent ED visits. Until recently, an equivalent book for populations with lower literacy levels did not exist for adult ailments.59 The book is distributed to educate members that some ED visits for such ailments as coughs, colds and vomiting could be handled by self care. The health plan sees the book as a low-cost tool to help at least some members improve understanding of their and their children's health, promote self-care when appropriate, and inform decisions about when to seek care. A similar book also exists for adults. NHP sends the family a mailing highlighting the book availability. Members can return a postcard if they would like to receive this book. NHP describes the success of the ED reduction program as mixed. On the one hand, NHP saw an overall 8.9% decrease in ER rates between 2002 and 2004. In addition, the rate of ED use during normal clinic hours has decreased. In 2003, 35.2% of total emergency visits took place between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, compared to 11.5% in the most recent 12-month period of June 2005-June 2006. Meanwhile, fewer ED users are patients who have not received recent primary care in the year of their ED visit. In 1999, 30.9% of total ED users had not seen a physician in the last 12 months, compared to 17.5% between March 2005 and March 2006.

Appendix B 36

But challenges remain. The bulk of the reduction came from commercial NHP enrollees, who faced

higher copays.60 While pediatric ED use among Medicaid patients has leveled off, Medicaid adult use of EDs climbed 14 percent between March 2003 and March 2006.61 Compared to pediatric practices, adult primary care practices are not as oriented toward same-day access for acute illnesses. And NHP believes some emergency rooms may market themselves as express care centers, with one even sponsoring a billboard boasting of 30-minute wait times to see a doctor.

Financial savings have been modest in that they have mainly reduced the rate of increase of ED

expenditures. Per member/per month costs for ED visits have continued to increase, thanks to rising costs per ED visit. Given the decline in growth of ED costs, NHP plans to continue and refine the program to promote health care homes for members as an alternative to sporadic, uncoordinated, acute care in emergency rooms.

NHP has recently found that as a result of state health care reform efforts in Massachusetts, they now

have 6000 new members that were previously uninsured. NHP is in the process of trying to assess the needs of this complex population. They are offering monetary incentives to these members if they complete a Health Risk Assessment form that allows the plan to gather some baseline health status information. If the HRA indicates that the member has a history as a frequent ED user, these members will be included in the adult ED program.

The second development is a new four million dollar initiative by the state of Massachusetts to provide

ED reduction grants to health care entities across the state. NHP received funding from the program and will redistribute funds to selected health center sites within its network that focus on practice redesign, urgent care, open access, and other initiatives developed to address ED use in low income populations.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

The combination of increasing emergency department use and rising emergency care costs threaten an already overburdened healthcare system. With the country’s EDs stretched thin, strategies for redirecting patients from EDs are increasingly important. Health centers and community-affiliated health plans have already taken steps to prevent inappropriate use of emergency rooms and provide access to primary care. Through these case studies and other research, NACHC and ACAP point out the following lessons learned.

1. Health centers and heath plans have found lack of start-up funding to be a major barrier to implement

comprehensive ED reduction programs. 2. Understanding the community’s needs can make an ED reduction program more effective. The

ability to identify reasons why community members use the ED instead of primary care helps the health center or health plan address these issues. The working poor need providers who respond to their needs, including availability of primary care after working hours. Low income individuals cannot afford to miss a day of work to see a doctor. Having weekend and evening hours provides better access to primary care for these individuals. This better access could reduce ED use by providing another option for care during the evenings and weekends. Whether the solution is extended hours or targeted patient education, it will only work if the community’s needs are addressed.

3. A strong relationship between the hospital and health center/health plan may positively impact a health center or health plan’s ability to reduce ED use. Health plans that receive real-time data from EDs can reach their members more quickly following an emergency room visit than they would if they simply relied on claims data. Likewise, health centers with increased interaction with the hospital may be better able to serve frequent ED users.

4. Patient education for non-emergent issues is important but may work best when coupled with targeted case management. Educational materials should be tailored to targeted patient populations, at appropriate literacy levels and in multiple languages. Beyond patient education, those with complex

Appendix B 37

needs also need better case management to access needed care to avoid medical complications that result in ED visits.

5. Investment in health information technology (HIT) would make communication between hospitals and ED reduction programs easier. Nearly all health centers submit claims electronically.62 ACAP plans report an average of 54.6% of claims received electronically. But while claims payment has becoming increasingly automated over the last ten years, HIT is still in its infancy for use as a quality improvement tool. Electronic medical records in clinics and the software to communicate effectively between providers and plans would allow records and crucial information to be quickly transferred between the hospital and ED reduction program. It would also help the program monitor whether their patients have been to the ED. Only 9% of health centers report currently having electronic medical records. Cost is the biggest barrier to implementing an electronic medical records system.

Based on these lessons learned, policy makers should consider the following recommendations in order

to assist health centers and health plans make further progress on reducing avoidable ED visits.

4. Recognize successful models that improve access to health care homes and provide resources to expand and replicate these models.

5. Savings generated through reducing ED visits through improved access to health care homes should be reinvested in the providers and plans bearing the cost of primary care. While hospitals and payers will see savings, those who generate the savings will only see their own costs rise as they treat more patients.

6. Public insurance must be maintained or even expanded. In order to most effectively improve health outcomes and reduce costs, it is important to have both insurance and a health care home. In addition, third party payers provide needed revenue to safety net providers treating uninsured patients who would otherwise rely on the ED for ambulatory care.

7. Support health centers, safety net health plans, and other safety net providers in implementing HIT. Such support should be above and beyond existing funding streams and should specifically include those organizations that care for underserved communities. Additionally, HIT programs must be comprehensive and coordinated; otherwise health plans will be unable to aggregate and evaluate data received from multiple sources.

Conclusion

Improving access to primary care services clearly reduces ED use, which in turn creates a more efficient and affordable health care system. Health centers and health plans both enhance access to primary health and other care for vulnerable populations. Implementing formal ED utilization reduction programs can further enhance health center and health plans’ ability to reduce ED visits. This reduction in ED use can lead to savings for Medicaid, because providing primary and preventive care is cheaper than providing care at an ED. While health centers serve as a vital source of health care homes, Medicaid managed care, by facilitating primary care relationships between Medicaid enrollees and providers and promoting regular preventive care, is also a means to achieving effective health care homes for low-income populations. Receiving primary care and preventive services can help keep medical problems from escalating and becoming more extensive, and therefore more expensive. Although more research is needed to determine the savings generated by these types of programs, savings related to reducing ED visits should offset the costs associated with expanding the capacity of the safety net to meet the increased ambulatory care needs that such efforts will inevitably trigger.

Both the DRA initiative to reduce ED visits and various state health reform initiatives, such as the Massachusetts reform discussed in the NHP case study, show concerted efforts on the part of the federal government and the states to find effective solutions to rising ED utilization costs. Safety net health centers and health plans are poised as ideal partners in these efforts. We hope these case studies will spark collaboration between health centers, hospitals, health plans, and other providers. Further collaboration will only lead to a more cost effective and higher quality health care system.

Appendix B 38

Appendix A

Annual Wasted Expenditures on Avoidable Emergency Department Visits, 2006

Alabama $ 319,400,854 Kentucky $ 353,798,163 North Dakota $ 41,491,015

Alaska $ 32,732,965 Louisiana $ 354,757,738 Ohio $ 932,659,694 Arizona $ 311,438,714 Maine $ 105,902,573 Oklahoma $ 208,230,028 Arkansas $ 189,500,122 Maryland $ 320,407,972 Oregon $ 179,035,367 California $ 1,829,345,794 Massachusetts $ 401,458,842 Pennsylvania $ 790,754,728 Colorado $ 238,246,230 Michigan $ 726,928,960 Rhode Island $ 61,807,552 Connecticut $ 207,348,610 Minnesota $ 256,913,897 South Carolina $ 265,008,761 Delaware $ 47,497,790 Mississippi $ 252,769,055 South Dakota $ 36,418,180 District of Columbia $ 55,797,643 Missouri $ 429,712,468 Tennessee $ 476,285,058 Florida $ 1,061,420,739 Montana $ 54,444,985 Texas $ 1,233,549,349 Georgia $ 537,867,735 Nebraska $ 94,243,689 Utah $ 152,152,368 Hawaii $ 55,098,405 Nevada $ 112,928,929 Vermont $ 38,015,757 Idaho $ 88,713,842 New Hampshire $ 79,046,610 Virginia $ 452,375,606 Illinois $ 853,731,297 New Jersey $ 438,047,852 Washington $ 354,817,611 Indiana $ 441,019,299 New Mexico $ 132,027,370 West Virginia $ 180,480,840 Iowa $ 183,880,125 New York $ 1,126,031,176 Wisconsin $ 272,179,576 Kansas $ 159,038,693 North Carolina $ 548,645,880 Wyoming $ 36,360,931 United States $18,445,991,718

Source: National Association of Community Health Centers. 2006 Access to Community Health Databook. 2006. www.nachc.com/research/files/2006Datasummary.pdf. For each state’s Databook, see www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp.

Assumes that 35% of all emergency room visits are “avoidable” (i.e., non-urgent or primary care treatable) based on relevant literature. Multiplies average expenditure for an emergency room visit by region, 2003 to 35% of all ER visits in each state in 2004. Then subtracts the average cost of a health center medical visit for each state in 2004. Average medical visit for health centers nationally includes territories. Finally, inflates this to 2006 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Data sources:

• Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts Online. “Hospital Emergency Room Visits per 1,000 Population, 2003-2004.” And “Total Number of Residents, 2003-2004.” www.statehealthfacts.kff.org. National data are from 2004.

• Machlin, SR. “Expenses for a Hospital Emergency Room Visit, 2003.” MEPS Statistical Brief #111. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2006. http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/st111/stat111.pdf. NACHC uses expenses as a proxy for cost.

• Health center cost per medical visit by state from Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, HHS, 2004 Uniform Data System.

• Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. www.bls.gov.

Appendix B 39

http://www.nachc.com/research/files/2006Datasummary.pdf

http://www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp

1 Smith V, et al. Medicaid Budgets, Spending and Policy Initiatives in State Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006: Results from a 50-State Survey. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, October 2005. www.kff.org/medicaid/7392.cfm. 2 Includes federally-funded and non-federally funded health centers through 2005, and estimates of patients served in 2006. 3 McCaig L and Nawar E. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 Emergency Department Summary. National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, no. 372. June 23, 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad372.pdf 4 Institute of Medicine (IOM). Hospital-Based Emergency Care: At the Breaking Point. National Academy of Sciences Press, 2006. 5 Cunningham P. “What Accounts For Differences in the Use of Hospital Emergency Departments Across the U.S. Communities?” July 18, 2006 Health Affairs 25:w324-w336. 6 Cunningham P and May J. “Insured Americans Drive Surge in Emergency Department Visits.” Issue Brief No. 70. Center for Studying Health System Change. October 2003. www.hschange.com. 7 IOM, 2006. 8 Cunningham, July 18, 2006. 9 IOM, 2006. 10 Cunningham, July 18, 2006. McCaig L and Nawar E. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 Emergency Department Summary. National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, no. 372. June 23, 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad372.pdf. 11 Billings J, Parikh N, and Mijanovich T. “Emergency Department Use in New York City: A Substitute for Primary Care?” Issue Brief. Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund. November 2000. www.cmwf.org. 12 McCaig LF. “National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 Emergency Department Summary.” Vital and Health Statistics, Number 245. National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994. 13 Utah Office of Health Care Statistics. Primary Care Sensitive Emergency Department Visits in Utah, 2001. Utah Department of Health. April 2004. health.utah.gov/hda/Reports/Primary_Care_ERvisits_Utah2001.pdf. Suruda A, Burns TJ, Knight S, Dean JM. Health insurance, neighborhood income, and emergency department usage by Utah children 1996-1998. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 Apr 13;5(1):29. 14 National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS. “Characteristics of Emergency Departments Serving High Volumes of Safety Net Patients: United States, 2000.” Vital and Health Statistics Series 13, Number 155. May 2004. www.cdc.gov/nchs. 15 Utah Office of Health Care Statistics, April 2004. 16 IOM, 2006. 17 National Association of Community Health Centers. 2006 Access to Community Health Databook. 2006. www.nachc.com/research/files/2006Datasummary.pdf. For each state’s Databook, see www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp. For methodology, see www.nachc.com/research/files/2006Databookreferences.pdf. 18 IOM, 2006. 19 Burt CW and McCaig LF. Staffing, capacity, and ambulance diversion in emergency departments: United States, 2003–04. National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, no 376. September 27, .2006. The General Accounting Office (GAO) found that as many as two in three hospitals were on diversion at some point during 2001. GAO. Hospital Emergency Departments: Crowded Conditions Vary Among Hospitals and Communities. GAO-03-460. March 2003. 20 Cunningham and May, 2003. 21 Starfield B. “Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology.” New York: Oxford University Press. 1998; Starfield B. “Primary Care and Health: A Cross-National Comparison.” JAMA 266(16):2268-71. October 1991; and Starfield B. “Is Primary Care Essential?” 344(8930):1129-33. October 1994. 22 Sox C. et al “Insurance or Regular Physician: Which is the Most Powerful Predictor of Health Care?” March 1998 American Journal of Public Health 88(3):364-370. 23 Lambrew J. et al “The Effects of Having a Regular Doctor on Access to Primary Care.” February 1996. Medical Care. 34(2):138-151. 24 Shi L and Sharfield B. “The Medical Home, Access to Care and Insurance: A Review of Evidence.” Pediatrics 113(5):1493-8. May 2004. Sox et al, 1998. “Demographic Characteristics of Persons Without a Regular Source of Medical Care – Selected States, 1995.” May 1998 JAMA. (279)17: 277-279. Starfield B. Concept, Evaluation, and Policy. Primary Care. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. Philips RL, et al. “The importance of having health insurance and a usual source of care.” Robert Graham Center One-Pager #29. September 2004. www.graham-center.org/onepager29.xml. 25 NACHC and Robert Graham Center, Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care unpublished data. Data to be published March 2007. Please refer to www.nachc.com/research to find this and other reports. 26 Cunningham P. “Medicaid/SCHIP Cuts and Hospital Emergency Department Use.” January/February 2006 Health Affairs 25(1):237-247. 27 Section 6043 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. See Schwartz R, McKinney D, and Maresca A. “State Policy Report #10: Additional Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Identified for Potential Impact on Health Centers.” National Association of Community Health Centers, March 2006. www.nachc.com/advocacy/Files/state-policy/DRAof05analysisFINAL.pdf (starts on page 34). 28 Proser M. “Deserving the Spotlight: Health Centers Provide High Quality and Cost Effective Care.” Journal Ambulatory Care Management. 28(4): 321-330. October-December 2005. 29 National Association of Community Health Centers. “Evaluating Coordination of Care in Medicaid: Improving Quality and Clinical Outcomes.” Testimony before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. October 15, 2003. http://www.savethesafetynet.org/documents/NACHCStatementfor10.15MedicaidHearing.pdf. 30 Cunningham P. “What Accounts for Differences in the Use of Hospital Emergency Departments Across U.S. Communities?” July 2006 Health Affairs 25(2006): W324-W336. Cunningham, PJ. “Medicaid/SCHIP Cuts and Hospital Emergency Department Use.” January/February 2006 Health Affairs 25(1):237-247. 31 Hadley J and Cunningham P. “Availability of Safety Net Providers and Access to Care of Uninsured Persons.” October 2004 Health Services Research 39(5):1527-1546. 32 Duggar BC, et al. Utilization and Costs to Medicaid of AFDC Recipients in New York Served and Not Served by Community Health Centers. Center for Health Policy Studies, 1994.

Appendix B 40

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/7392.cfm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad372.pdf

http://www.hschange.com/

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad372.pdf

http://www.cmwf.org/

http://health.utah.gov/hda/Reports/Primary_Care_ERvisits_Utah2001.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

http://www.nachc.com/research/files/2006Datasummary.pdf

http://www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp

http://www.nachc.com/research/files/2006Databookreferences.pdf

http://www.graham-center.org/onepager29.xml

http://www.graham-center.org/onepager29.xml

http://www.nachc.com/research

http://www.nachc.com/advocacy/Files/state-policy/DRAof05analysisFINAL.pdf

http://www.savethesafetynet.org/documents/NACHCStatementfor10.15MedicaidHearing.pdf

33 Falik, M., et al. “Ambulatory Care Sensitive Hospitalizations and Emergency Visits: Experiences of Medicaid Patients Using Federally Qualified Health Centers.” Medical Care, 39(6), 551-56. 2001. 34 Falik, M., et al. Comparative Effectiveness of FQHCs As Regular Source Of Care: Application of Sentinel ACSC Events As Performance Measures. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29(1):24-35. 2006. 35 Jessamy Taylor. “Don’t Bring Me Your Tired, Your Poor: The Crowded State of America’s Emergency Departments.” National Health Policy Forum, Issue Brief #811. July 7, 2006. http://www.nhpf.org/pdfs_ib/IB811_EDCrowding_07-07-06.pdf. 36 Proser, 2005. 37 McCaig and Nawar, 2006 38 Brodsky, K. “Best Practices in Specialty Recruitment and Retention: Challenges and Solutions.” The Commonwealth Fund. August 2005. http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=290918 39 Cunningham, July 2006. 40 National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS. “Characteristics of Emergency Departments Serving High Volumes of Safety Net Patients: United States, 2000.” Vital and Health Statistics Series 13, Number 155. May 2004. www.cdc.gov/nchs. 41 Cunningham P. “Medicaid Patients Increasingly Concentrated Among Physicians.” Health System Change, No. 16. August 2006. 42 Brodsky K. “Best Practices in Specialty Provider Recruitment and Retention: Challenges and Solutions.” The Commonwealth Fund. August 2005. http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=290918. 43 The Lewin Group. “Medicaid Managed Care Cost Savings – A Synthesis of Fourteen Studies.” July 2004. http://www.lewin.com/NR/rdonlyres/5512B172-0018-495D-B0D9-8B285FF7B233/0/July2004LewinMedicaidManagedReport.pdf44 McCue, Michael and Robert Hurley, Financial Performance Indicators for Health Plans in Medicaid Managed Care, Managed Care Quarterly, 12(1), 2004, p. 20. 45 Himmelstein, David U., MD, Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, Ida Hellander, MD, Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, "Quality of Care in Investor-Owned vs. Not-for-Profit HMOs," The Journal of the American Medical Association, July 14, 1999, volume 281, no. 2, p. 159-163. 46 Association of Community Affiliated Plans. “Safety Net Health Plans: Critical Partners in the Health Care Safety Net.” http://www.communityplans.net/publications/Working%20Papers/Final%20SNHP%20Paper.pdf. 47 Association of Community Affiliated Plans. “Safety Net Health Plans: Critical Partners in the Health Care Safety Net.” http://www.communityplans.net/publications/Working%20Papers/Final%20SNHP%20Paper.pdf. 48 For more information, contact Barbara Lay, CEO of Minnie Hamilton Health Care Center, Inc at [email protected] or (304) 354-9018. 49 For more information, contact Michael Shababb, COO of North Hudson Community Action Corporation, at [email protected] or (201) 866-2727. 50 DeLia D. Potentially Avoidable Use of Hospital Emergency Departments in New Jersey. A Report to the New Jersey Department of health and Senior Services. Rutgers Center for State Health Policy. July 2006. www.cshp.rutgers.edu/Downloads/6330.pdf. 51 For more information on EMTALA, see http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/. 52 For more information, see www.frequenthealthusers.org. Or call Lisa Mangiante, Deputy Director; FUHSI Program Office; Corporation for Supportive Housing at 510.251.1910. 53 For more information, contact Senior Health Services Manager Christine Sippl at 831-454-2080 or [email protected]. 54 Healey K. “Case Management in the Criminal Justice System.” National Institute of Justice: Research in Action, page 2. February 1999. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173409.pdf. 55 Frequent Users of Health Services Initiative, a joint project of The California Endowment and the California HealthCare Foundation. “The Case for Case Management.” Policy Brief 3. August 2006. http://lahealthaction.org/library/The_Case_for_Case_Management_PB3.pdf. 56 For more information about the Model for Improvement, see www.ihi.org. 57 Fuda KK and Immekus R. "Frequent Users of Massachusetts Emergency Departments: A Statewide Analysis." Annals of Emergency Medicine. Vol. 48, Issue 1, Pages 16.e1-16.e8. July 2006. 58 Mayer G and Kuklierus A. "What To Do When Your Child Gets Sick." Institute for Healthcare Advancement. January 1, 2000. 59 A new edition of “The Healthwise Handbook" – also written at 5th-6th grade level – is expected to be published later this year. It focuses on adults, and NHP is formulating a strategy for marketing it to members. 60 NHP increased the ED copay for its commercial members, from $25 to $50. But because federal Medicaid rules don’t allow more than nominal copays for Medicaid beneficiaries, the increase did not apply to Medicaid members. Medicaid beneficiaries – who form the majority of NHP’s membership – did not see any change in their copays. 61 NHP finds that Medicaid adults use EDs more often than their counterparts in commercial managed care. The adult ED utilization rate for Medicaid patients stands at 758 per 1,000 members, compared to 273 for NHP’s commercial adult users. 62 NACHC, Harvard University, and George Washington University. “Electronic Health Information Among Community Health Centers: Adoptions and Barriers.” Fact Sheet. May 2006. http://www.nachc.com/research/. Also, based on NACHC, Harvard University, and George Washington University 2006 Survey of Health Center Use of Electronic Health Information, unpublished data.

Appendix B 41

http://www.nhpf.org/pdfs_ib/IB811_EDCrowding_07-07-06.pdf

http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=290918

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

http://www.cmwf.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=290918

http://www.lewin.com/NR/rdonlyres/5512B172-0018-495D-B0D9-8B285FF7B233/0/July2004LewinMedicaidManagedReport.pdf

http://www.communityplans.net/publications/Working Papers/Final SNHP Paper.pdf

http://www.communityplans.net/publications/Working Papers/Final SNHP Paper.pdf



http://www.cshp.rutgers.edu/Downloads/6330.pdf

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/

http://www.frequenthealthusers.org/


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173409.pdf

http://lahealthaction.org/library/The_Case_for_Case_Management_PB3.pdf

http://www.ihi.org/

http://www.nachc.com/research/


Appendix C

BOND AUTHORIZATIONS /GRANTS-IN-AID TO COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND PRIMARY CARE ORGANIZATIONS

Special Act No. 93-2, June Special Session Section 22 (e) For the Department of Health Services: Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers and Primary Care Organizations for renovations, improvements, and expansion of facilities, including acquisition of land and/or buildings, not exceeding $1,500,000. Section 50 (d) For the Department of Health Services: Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers and Primary Care Organizations for renovations, improvements, and expansion of facilities, including acquisition of land and/or buildings, not exceeding $1,000,000. Special Act No. 97-1, June Special Session Section 13 (f) For the Department of Public Health: Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers and Primary Care Organizations for renovations, improvements and the purchase of equipment, not exceeding $1,000,000. Special Act No. 01-2, June Special Session Section 9 (f) For the Department of Public Health: Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers, Primary Care Organizations, and to municipalities for school based health clinics, for renovations, improvements, expansion of facilities, and for the purchase and installation of dental equipment, including the purchase of mobile dental health clinics, not exceeding $2,500,000. Section 28 (k) For the Department of Public Health: Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers, Primary Care Organizations, and to municipalities for school based health clinics, for renovations, improvements, expansion of facilities, and for the purchase and installation of dental equipment, including the purchase of mobile dental health clinics, not exceeding $1,000,000. Special Act No. 04-2, May Special Session *Section 27. Subsection (e) of Section 22 of Special Act 93-2, June Special Session, as amended by Section 147 of Public Act 94-2 of the May Special Session, is amended to read as follows (Effective July 1, 2004): Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers and Primary Care Organizations for renovations, improvements, and expansion of facilities, including acquisition of land and/or buildings and equipment, not exceeding ($1,500,000) $1,449,451. Special Act No. 04-2, May Special Session *Section 33. Subsection (d) of Section 50 of Special Act 93-2 of the June Special Session, as amended by Section 166 of Public Act 94-2 of the May Special Session, is amended to read as follows (Effective July 1, 2004): Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers and Primary Care Organizations for the purchase of equipment, renovations, improvements, and expansion of facilities, including acquisition of land and/or buildings, not exceeding ($7,000,000) $6,942,729. Special Act No. 05-1, June Special Session Section 13 (k) For the Department of Public Health: Grants-in-aid to Community Health Centers, Primary Care Organizations and municipalities for the purchase of equipment, renovations, improvements and expansion of facilities, including acquisition of land or buildings, not exceeding $8,000,000, provided $1,000,000 shall be used for school based health clinics.


APPENDIX D

FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER FACTS

• “FQHC” is the acronym for Federally Qualified Health Centers that were established in the 1960s as part of the federal government’s “War on Poverty.” The founders saw quality, personalized medical care as a right of all people and established a policy that no patient would be turned away, regardless of their ability to pay.

• FQHCs are “by the community, for the community, of the community.” Federal law

requires that more than half of an FQHC’s Board of Directors must be patients of that health center.

• Nearly one in every 16 Connecticut residents, more than 217,000 people from 166

towns and cities made 954,559 visits for primary medical, dental and mental health services at a FQHC in 2005. Recent state bond funding will enable FQHCs to serve an estimated 85,000 new patients with primary and specialized health care.

• The standard of health care at FQHCs is exceptionally high. These nonprofit health

centers must pass rigorously high standards each year to maintain their federal designation and Joint Commission on Healthcare Organizations accreditation.

• Connecticut’s FQHCs are the state’s largest primary care delivery system for the

uninsured and underserved population. For more than 40 years, these health centers have provided services to those with little or no ability to pay for health care.

• All FQHCs offer a sliding scale fee for services to uninsured and lower income

patients to enable patients of all income levels to access services.

• FQHCs are the public health infrastructure for Connecticut and have taken on the role that was historically played by public health departments with regard to immunizations, STD testing, health education and dental care.

• The convenience and accessibility of community health care centers that are located

in or near the neighborhoods where many of their patients reside make them a preferred and often necessary option. Evening and weekend hours, as well as 24-hour on-call coverage, accommodate the work schedules of many patients.

• Nearly a third of FQHC patients are uninsured. Many are from working families

whose jobs either do not offer health coverage, or, if they do, the employee’s share of the premiums is unaffordable.

• FQHCs currently giving medical and dental care to over 64,520 school-aged

children.

• Connecticut’s Medicaid and State Administered General Assistance (SAGA) Programs rely heavily on FQHCs, who are the primary care providers for over one quarter of the Medicaid population in Connecticut and 60% of the SAGA population.

• All of the federal Healthcare for the Homeless programs in Connecticut are run by

the FQHCs.


• The majority of FQHC patients in Connecticut live at or below 100% federal

poverty level (FPL); most are of minority ethnicity and most have public health insurance. Hispanics/Latinos are the largest minority patient population and African Americans make up the second largest minority population. Only 11% of patients have private health insurance; 28% are uninsured and 61% have public health insurance. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Medicaid patients and the number of uninsured patients at FQHCs grew faster than Medicaid and uninsured patients nationally.1

• FQHCs offer high quality health care to every member of the family.

Comprehensive support services include:

Primary care Prenatal care Dental services Mental health counseling Immunizations Nutrition counseling Comprehensive HIV care: outreach

education, prevention and treatment AIDS family social services Case management School-based clinics Family planning Homeless support services Substance abuse counseling, treatment and

referrals Pharmacy services Lab testing

12-step programs Domestic violence prevention Senior abuse screening Migrant healthcare Cancer, health screenings Diabetes management Childbirth classes Neonatal home visits Breast-feeding classes Asthma treatment Early education supports Flu clinics Transportation Medical interpretation Eye exams Podiatry

• Sources of Revenue

Billing RevenueMedicaid 60.1 MMedicare 8.6 MOther Public Programs 15.9 MPrivate 8.9 MSelf Pay/Uninsured 20.2 M Total Billing Revenue $113.7 M

Grant RevenueFederal 21.6 MState 10.4 MLocal 1.6 MOther:Private, Foundation 1.0 M Total Grant Revenue $34.6 M

Other Revenue $1.6 M

Total Revenue, All Sources $149.9 M

Note: Includes data from 9 of 12 CPCA member centers. Based on preliminary 2006 Federal UDS reports

Medicaid 40%

Medicare 6%Other Public

Programs 11%

Private 6%

Self Pay/Uninsured

13%

Federal 14%

State 7%

Local 1%

Other:Private, Foundation 1%

Other Revenue 1%

1 A Sketch of Community Health Centers, National Association of Community Health Centers, 2006.


13 FQHCs with Over 100 Sites Provide Services to Over 226,000 Patients.*

*Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System for ten centers, additional three centers self-reporting. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


CHARTER OAK HEALTH CENTER, INC.

21 Grand Street, Hartford, CT 06106 860.550.7500

Charter Oak Health Center, Inc. (COHC) is a federally qualified, freestanding, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) accredited, nonprofit community health center that has continuously provided community-based ambulatory primary health care in Hartford since 1978. It was formed in response to the unmet health care needs of the residents of two public housing projects. COHC is the only community health center located in southern Hartford. To this end, COHC provides an integrated model of primary care based on a private practice model through three major patient care departments: Medical, Dental, and Behavioral Health. COHC’s target population is primarily medically underserved and comprised of individuals and families who are members of racial/ethnic minorities and who live in poverty. COHC’s philosophy is to provide comprehensive primary care to all in need on a sliding fee basis and without regard to ability to pay. In addition to its community health center sites, COHC operates several off-site programs in Hartford. Patients (2006): 22,879

Uninsured: 21% Medicaid: 60% Medicare: 3% Public Insurance: 8% Private Insurance: 8%

Patient Encounters: 76,766 Medical: 78% Dental: 9% Mental Health: 9% Others: 4%

Patients best served by language other than English: 42% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 62% Unknown: 38% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 56% 20 – 44: 23% Over 45: 21% Patients by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino: 66% Other: 14% African American: 13% White: 7% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC. 500 Albany Avenue, Hartford, CT 06120

860.249.9625 For over 36 years, Community Health Services (CHS) as been serving Hartford’s North End community. As a community leader, CHS engages in strengthening the safety net for the uninsured and medically underserved. CHS believes in providing the best possible healthcare resources: new technologies, broader services, the most skilled professionals. Here, patients will find primary and preventive care, regardless of their economic situation. At Community Health Services, we treat problems of all kinds and sizes, but above all, we treat people with kindness, compassion and respect. Patients (2006): 15,653


Patient Encounters: 59,319 Medical: 58% Dental: 24% Mental Health: 8% Others: 10% Patients best served by language other than English: 35% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four): 100% and below: 83% 101 - 150%: 6% 151 – 200%: 1% Over 200%: <1% Unknown: 10% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 29% 20 – 44: 41% Over 45: 31% Patients by Race/Ethnicity African American: 53% Hispanic/Latino: 35% White: 6% Other: 6% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


COMMUNITY HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER OF GREATER TORRINGON 157 Litchfield Street, Torrington, CT 06790

860.489.0931 Community Health & Wellness Center of Greater Torrington serves the rural northwest corner of Connecticut. As the only provider of comprehensive health services in northwestern Connecticut, CHWC plays a significant role in the overall well-being of residents in this 20-town region, particularly those with limited resources. In response to increasing numbers of patients from area communities, the center is opening a satellite office in Winsted, the second largest community in the region. Patients (2006): 1,164

Uninsured: 28% Medicare: 12% Medicaid: 12% Public Insurance: 48%

Patient Medical Encounters: 3,895 Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and Below: 78% 101 – 150%: 9% 151 – 200%: 7% Unknown: 6% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 1% 20 – 44: 38% Over 45: 61% Patients by Race/Ethnicity White: 84% Hispanic/Latino: 10% African American: 5% Other: 1% *Source: Data compiled from health center information. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


EAST HARTFORD COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE, INC. 94 Connecticut Boulevard, East Hartford, CT 06108

860.528.1359

East Hartford Community HealthCare, Inc. is a non-profit health care organization whose mission is to impact the health and well being of the community by providing continuous, comprehensive high quality health care services without discrimination as to age, sex, race, national origin, creed, political affiliation, residence or ability to pay. The Medical Department is staffed by Board Certified Physicians and family practice Nurse Practitioners. The Dental Department is staffed by five Dentists and two Dental Hygienists. There is also a Mobile Dental Hygiene program in the East Hartford and Manchester Elementary School systems. East Hartford accepts various types of medical coverage: CIGNA, ConnectiCare, Health Net, United Health Care, Medicare, Medicaid, and HUSKY (Blue Care Family Plan, Community Health Network of CT, Health Net and Preferred One). If you have no insurance or little insurance, you may qualify for a sliding fee schedule that is based on family size and income. They will also customize a payment plan to fit your needs. Patients (2006): 8,860


Patient Encounters: 33,091 Medical: 46% Dental: 50% Others: 4% Patients best served by language other than English: 19% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four): 100% and below: 53% 101 - 150%: 27% 151 – 200%: 12% Over 200%: 7% Unknown: 2% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 40% 20 – 44: 34% Over 45: 27% Patients by Race/Ethnicity White: 44% Hispanic/Latino: 23% African American: 22% Other: 11% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


FAIR HAVEN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. 374 Grand Avenue, New Haven, CT 06513

203.777.7411

The Fair Haven Community Health Center (FHCHC) is a not-for-profit primary health care organization dedicated to serving the greater New Haven Community. The Center provides comprehensive health care – from prenatal to pediatric, adolescent to adult and geriatric. The Mission is to provide excellent, accessible health care to the residents of the community, regardless of their ability to pay. A consumer and community-based board of directors, the majority of whom are patients, gives guidance and direction to our mission.

FHCHC is a federally recognized community health center, and has been nationally recognized as a leader in health disparities collaboratives and chronic disease management. Clinical staff includes board certified physicians, pediatric and family nurse practitioners, physician assistants and certified midwives. In addition to the main site on Grand Avenue, the Center operates 5 school based health centers and an elderly satellite at the Bella Vista Elderly Housing Complex. To complement the comprehensive range of primary care services, deliveries of our pregnant patients in the hospital, and 24-hour accessibility for our patients, the Center offers convenient social service and behavioral health counseling, on-site lab services, a WIC program and wellness activities. Patients (2006): 13,053


Patient Encounters: 68,166 Medical: 88% Mental Health: 3% Others: 9% Patients best served by language other than English: 51% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 88% 101 - 150%: 7% 151 – 200%: 3% Over 200%: 2% Unknown: 1% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 47% 20 – 44: 32% Over 45: 21% Patients by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino: 73% African American: 15% White: 12% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


GENERATIONS FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, INC. 1315 Main Street, Willimantic, CT 06226

860.450.7456 • www.genhealth.org Generations Family Health Center is your full service community health center, with one of the most important missions possible—access to primary health care. Health is our single most important asset, and maintenance of this resource is the commonality we all share. We are on the frontline of primary medical, dental and health support services and need you as a partner, whether you are a patient, a provider or as an advocate. The mission of Generations Family Health Center, Inc. is to provide quality, compassionate and professional health care that is affordable, easily accessible and without discrimination to all members of the communities we serve. Patients (2006): 13,671

Uninsured: 30% Medicare: 9% Medicaid: 35% Public Insurance: 12% Private Insurance: 14%

Patient Encounters: 55,940 Medical: 65% Dental: 16% Others: 19% Patients best served by language other than English: 24% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2005 is $19,350 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 46% 101 - 150%: 11% 151 – 200%: 7% Over 200%: 14% Unknown: 22% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 31% 20 – 44: 39% Over 45: 31% Patients by Race/Ethnicity White: 61% Hispanic/Latino: 27% African American: 6% Other: 6% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


HILL HEALTH CENTER, INC. 400-428 Columbus Avenue, New Haven, CT 06519

203.503.3252 • Hill Health Center is a federally qualified community health center established in 1968 in a collaboration between the community and Yale Medical School. The first community health center in Connecticut, the Hill Health Center has a long history of serving New Haven neighborhoods, which are among the poorest in the State. Hill Health Center also provides health care services to the City of West Haven and towns of the Lower Naugatuck Valley, Ansonia, Derby, Seymour, Shelton, Naugatuck and Oxford. Hill Health Center is affiliated with Yale-New Haven Hospital and the Hospital of Saint Raphael. Our staff includes: internists, Ob/Gyns, pediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse midwives, registered nurses, LPNs, certified medical technologists, certified phlebotomists, social workers, nutritionists, registered dietitians, dentists and dental hygienists. The Center operates six school-based health centers and dental school-based centers. As a federally qualified health center, Hill Health Center provides an income based sliding fee scale to uninsured persons. The Center accepts most forms of insurance. Patients (2006): 28,000


Patient Encounters: 161,000 Medical Encounters: 56% Dental Encounters: 7% Mental Health: 16% Substance Abuse: 13% Others: 8% Patients best served by language other than English: 32% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 58% 101 - 150%: 34% 151 – 200%: 7% Over 200%: 1% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 30% 20 – 44: 32% Over 45: 39% Patients by Race/Ethnicity White: 20% Hispanic/Latino: 31% African American: 33% Other: 15% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


NORWALK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. 121 Water Street, Norwalk, CT 06854

203.899.1759 Norwalk Community Health Center (NCHC) serves about 10,000 unique patients every year, providing medical services in its three departments: Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, and Adult Medicine. The health center provides specialty clinics for patients living with diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and asthma. In the spring of 2007 the health center began offering mental health services to its pediatric patients and families, augmented by the services of a trained case manager/social worker. NCHC also provides literacy services to its patients by offering a practical curriculum focusing on key life issues like health, finance, and nutrition. NCHC is not just out of space, it is doubling up. The Medical Director and Case Manager do not have adequate space in which to perform their functions and no suitable space is available for the classroom components of the literacy initiatives and other patient education functions. Clinical space in all three services is under tremendous pressure due to lack of space; three pediatricians share an office more suitable for one. No office space exists for our midwives and OB physician; and administration is doubled up in several areas. The health center has long outgrown the available storage space for supplies. The bonding dollars we are requesting will decompress an untenable situation and allow for expansion to meet the clinical and social/mental health needs of our patients. Patients (2006): 8,514


Patient Medical Encounters: 29,504 Patients best served by language other than English: 55% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 15% 101 - 150%: 10% 151 – 200%: 5% Over 200%: 3% Unknown: 66% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 45% 20 – 44: 33% Over 45: 21% Patients by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino: 51% African American: 21% White: 9% Other: 20% Source: Data compiled from Norwalk Community Health Center information. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


OPTIMUS HEALTH CARE, INC. 471 Barnum Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06608 203.696.3260 • www.optimushealthcare.org

Optimus Health Care is a mature, PHS/BPHC 330(E), JCAHO accredited community health center. Incorporated in 1976, the OHC, a 501(c)(3) organization, was founded by a group of civic minded individuals committed to the development of a health care facility dedicated to the health of a neighborhood. The concept included a neighborhood location staffed by local residents, all potential users of the agency with a community based board of directors. A Federally Qualified Health Center, the OHC has a present operating budget of approximately 22 million dollars, and is one of only two community health centers servicing the City of Bridgeport. The Center's location is a federally designated enterprise community area. The strengths of the organization include a deep rooted linkage to the community via its culturally sensitive staff, its Board of Directors comprised of Board members who live or work in the community, and its enthusiasm to help those most in need. Optimus Health Care, Inc. is an organization whose mission is to provide comprehensive health services to persons regardless of their ability to pay. Governed by a Board of Directors, who hire the Chief Executive Officer, set annual budgets and work plans, the OPTHC employs several competent professionals with many areas of expertise, e.g., Medical Director, Dental Director, Director of Nursing, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Grants Manager, and a Human Resource Director. Patients (2006): 34,567


Patient Encounters: 127,572 Medical: 73% Dental: 17% Mental Health: 5% Others: 6% Patients best served by language other than English: 64% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 97% 101 - 150%: <1% 151 – 200%: <1% Over 200%: 2% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 38% 20 – 44: 39% Over 45: 23% Patients by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino: 62% African American: 25% White: 10% Other: 3% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. 361 Bird Street, Bridgeport, CT 06605

203.330.6005 Southwest Community Health Center, Inc. continually strives to improve the scope and quality of services offered to meet the unique needs of the Bridgeport community. In addition to the comprehensive range of primary medical, dental and behavioral health services described in the following pages, Southwest provides community outreach, health education/disease prevention programs, and entitlement enrollment services. The Health Center’s physicians are Board Certified and provide hospital and after hours coverage to ensure continuity of care. Continuing its’ tradition of excellence, Southwest earned full accreditation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO). Patients (2006): 13,080


Patient Encounters: 64,827 Medical: 51% Dental: 17% Mental Health: 8% Substance Abuse: 19% Others: 4% Patients best served by language other than English: 3,686 Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 57% 101 - 150%: 35% 151 – 200%: 8% Over 200%: <1% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 29% 20 – 44: 45% Over 45: 26% Patients by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino: 44% African American: 41% White: 12% Other: 3% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


STAYWELL HEALTH CENTER, INC. 80 Phoenix Avenue, Waterbury, CT 06702

203.756.8021 • www.staywellhealth.org StayWell Health Center (SHC) is a Federally Qualified Health Center that has been operating in Waterbury since 1972. It opened as part of the Model Cities Program, a federal effort to bring health services to the Medically Underserved Areas of the city. Originally operated by the City of Waterbury, Department of Health, StayWell Health Center became a non-profit tax-exempt corporation in 1994. Since then, it has seen steady growth in its client base and its role as a healthcare provider within the community. StayWell Health Center participates in the Waterbury Ryan White I Consortium, the Federal Health Disparities Collaborative and implements several community-based programs including the Regional Healthy Start Initiative, and the Nurturing Connections Network. We are one of the only points of access to quality primary care in Waterbury for low-income and uninsured people. All patients are accepted regardless of their ability to pay or insurance status. As such, it is part of the Continuum of Care in the Greater Waterbury area. Its health care staff are culturally and linguistically competent to meet the needs of the community. Several internal committees are utilized to ensure quality and dignity for all patients, including an effective Peer Review Committee and Performance Improvement Committees. StayWell Health Center is especially proud to be a practice site for the Yale Medical School Primary Care Residency Program and the University of Connecticut’s School of Dentistry. In addition, StayWell Health Center participates in the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars program. Patients (2006): 16,233


Patient Encounters: 56,247 Medical Encounters: 59% Dental Encounters: 32% Mental Health: 6% Others: 2% Patients best served by language other than English: 25% Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2006 is $20,000 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 56% 101 - 150%: 10% 151 – 200%: 3% Over 200%: 2% Unknown: 30% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 46% 20 – 44: 35% Over 45: 19% Patients by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino: 47% White: 20% African American: 14% Other: 19% Source: Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 2006 Uniform Data System. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.


UNITED COMMUNITY & FAMILY SERVICES, INC.

34 East Town Street, Norwich CT 06360 860-889-2375 • www.ucfs.org

United Community & Family Services (UCFS) was established in 1877 as United Workers of Norwich. Since then, UCFS consistently met the needs of children, families and the aging in Norwich and surrounding communities through its commitment to provide the highest quality health and human services. The first services offered included a home for children and one for older adults later relocated to what is now known as Sheltering Arms. Later, mental health services for children, dental services, a well child clinic and public health nursing were added to the range of programs offered by the agency. For many years, a Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) was operated. In the mid 90’s, as a result of changing community needs, the VNA provided only psychiatrics and maternal-child home care. In the mid-1980 ’s, the agency changed its name to United Community Services to better reflect the work it carried out. UCFS remains committed to its mission of being a leading provider of and advocate for affordable, high quality health and human services that strengthen those in need throughout greater southeastern Connecticut. In the late 1990’s and early part of this century, UCFS expanded its services to include a primary care practice with specialists in pediatrics, internal medicine, and geriatrics. The UCFS Health Center offers comprehensive outpatient services in primary care, dental care and behavioral health services. Patients (2006): 10,645

Uninsured: 11% Medicare: 3% Medicaid: 67% Private Insurance: 19%

Patient Encounters: 52,040 Medical: 26% Dental: 29% Mental Health: 45% Patients best served by language other than English: Spanish speaking. However, UCFS has the services of Language Line available for all patients. Income as Percent of Poverty Level (The Federal Poverty Level for 2005 is $19,350 for a family of four.): 100% and below: 12% 101 - 150%: 10% 151 – 200%: 7% Over 200%: 72% Patients by Age 0 – 19: 54% 20 – 44: 26% Over 45: 20% Patients by Race/Ethnicity White: 59% Hispanic/Latino: 12% African American: 10 % Other: 19% *Source: Data compiled from health center information. Percent may not total 100% due to rounding.

federally qualified health enters a community solution …02d8455.netsolhost.com/documents/ct - a...

Documents