Presence of a Community Health Center and Uninsured Emergency Department Visit Rates in Rural Counties

National Center for Primary Care, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30310, USA.
The Journal of Rural Health (Impact Factor: 1.45). 02/2009; 25(1):8-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00193.x
Source: PubMed


Community health centers (CHCs) provide essential access to a primary care medical home for the uninsured, especially in rural communities with no other primary care safety net. CHCs could potentially reduce uninsured emergency department (ED) visits in rural communities.
We compared uninsured ED visit rates between rural counties in Georgia that have a CHC clinic site and counties without a CHC presence.
We analyzed data from 100% of ED visits occurring in 117 rural (non-metropolitan statistical area [MSA]) counties in Georgia from 2003 to 2005. The counties were classified as having a CHC presence if a federally funded (Section 330) CHC had a primary care delivery site in that county throughout the study period. The main outcome measure was uninsured ED visit rates among the uninsured (all-cause ED visits and visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions). Poisson regression models were used to examine the relationship between ED rates and the presence of a CHC. To ensure that the effects were unique to the uninsured population, we ran similar analyses on insured ED visits.
Counties without a CHC primary care clinic site had 33% higher rates of uninsured all-cause ED visits per 10,000 uninsured population compared with non-CHC counties (rate ratio [RR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.59). Higher ED visit rates remained significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.42) after adjustment for percentage of population below poverty level, percentage of black population, and number of hospitals. Uninsured ED visit rates were also higher for various categories of diagnoses, but remained statistically significant on multivariate analysis only for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (adjusted RR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47). No such relationship was found for ED visit rates of insured patients (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92-1.22).
The absence of a CHC is associated with a substantial excess in uninsured ED visits in rural counties, an excess not seen for ED visit rates among the insured.

Download full-text


Available from: George Rust, Aug 15, 2014
  • Source
    • "In 2010 the Affordable Care Act (ACA) appropriated an additional $11 billion over five years to establish CHCs as one of the pillars of health care reform—infrastructure intended to help serve the millions of Americans projected to gain health insurance under its provisions. Part of the rationale for the expansion of CHCs relies on a widely-held belief that they improve access to primary care and curb health care cost increases (Cunningham 2006, Falik et al. 2006, Rust et al. 2009, Hawkins and Schwartz 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper uses the rollout of the first Community Health Centers (CHCs) to study the longer-term health effects of increasing access to primary care. Within ten years of their establishment, CHCs are associated with a reduction in age-adjusted mortality rates of almost 2 percent among those 50 and older. The implied 7 to 13 percent decrease in one-year mortality risk among beneficiaries amounts to 20 to 40 percent of the 1966 poor/non-poor mortality gap for this age group. Large effects for those 65 and older suggest that increased access to primary care has longer-term benefits, even for populations with near universal health insurance. the NICHD (T32 HD0007339) as a UM Population Studies Center Trainee. We are grateful to Doug Almond, Hilary Hoynes, and Diane Schanzenbach for sharing the Regional Economic Information System (REIS) data for the period of 1959 to 1978; Amy Finkelstein for sharing the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey data from 1948 to 1974; Jean Roth for sharing the AHA data from 1976 to 1990; Cynthia Severt and the University of Wisconsin DISC for helping us locate and compile the OEO survey data; and Cheryl Sutherland and Jeffrey Hackett from NORC for helping us locate the restricted geographic identifiers in the SHSUE. We are also grateful for helpful comments from
    American Economic Review 03/2015; 105(3). DOI:10.1257/aer.20120070 · 2.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "One study was a randomized controlled trials [25], three were quasi-experimental studies with control group [21], [22], [26], one was a quasi-experimental study without control group [30], one was a case-control study [29], and the rest were cross-sectional [23], [24], [27], [28]. Five studies were from the US [22], [25], [26], [29], [30], and the rest from Canada [28], Spain [23], Sweden [21] and Brazil [27]. (Table S2). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emergency department (ED) utilization has dramatically increased in developed countries over the last twenty years. Because it has been associated with adverse outcomes, increased costs, and an overload on the hospital organization, several policies have tried to curb this growing trend. The aim of this study is to systematically review the effectiveness of organizational interventions designed to reduce ED utilization. We conducted electronic searches using free text and Medical Subject Headings on PubMed and The Cochrane Library to identify studies of ED visits, re-visits and mortality. We performed complementary searches of grey literature, manual searches and direct contacts with experts. We included studies that investigated the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce ED visits and the following study designs: time series, cross-sectional, repeated cross-sectional, longitudinal, quasi-experimental studies, and randomized trial. We excluded studies on specific conditions, children and with no relevant outcomes (ED visits, re-visits or adverse events). From 2,348 potentially useful references, 48 satisfied the inclusion criteria. We classified the interventions in mutually exclusive categories: 1) Interventions addressing the supply and accessibility of services: 25 studies examined efforts to increase primary care physicians, centers, or hours of service; 2) Interventions addressing the demand for services: 6 studies examined educational interventions and 17 examined barrier interventions (gatekeeping or cost). The evidence suggests that interventions aimed at increasing primary care accessibility and ED cost-sharing are effective in reducing ED use. However, the rest of the interventions aimed at decreasing ED utilization showed contradictory results. Changes in health care policies require rigorous evaluation before being implemented since these can have a high impact on individual health and use of health care resources. Systematic review registration: Identifier: CRD420111253.
    PLoS ONE 05/2012; 7(5):e35903. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0035903 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In another study, researchers estimated that a program that provides indigent patients with free primary care decreased ED utilization from 1.89 to 0.83 visits per year, and decreased charges for ED care by $457 per person (Davidson, Giancola, Gast, Ho, & Waddell, 2003). In Georgia, a study found that rural counties without a community health center (CHC) primary care clinic site had 33% higher rates of uninsured ED visits per 10,000 uninsured people than rural counties with a CHC (Rust et al., 2009). Finally, Young, D'Angelo, and Davis (2001) found that operating an in-school health center to provide primary care resulted in a significant decrease (p<0.03) in non-urgent ED use for the student population, from 44 visits to 26 visits per year for a sample of 216 students. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study estimates the benefits and costs of a free clinic providing primary care services. Using matched data from a free clinic and its corresponding regional hospital on a sample of newly enrolled clinic patients, patients' non-urgent emergency department (ED) and inpatient hospital costs in the year prior to clinic enrollment were compared to those in the year following enrollment to obtain financial benefits. We compare these to annual estimates of the costs associated with the delivery of primary care to these patients. For our sample (n = 207), the annual non-urgent ED and inpatient costs at the hospital fell by $170 per patient after clinic enrollment. However, the cost associated with delivering primary care in the first year after clinic enrollment cost $505 per patient. The presence of a free primary care clinic reduces hospital costs associated with non-urgent ED use and inpatient care. These reductions in costs need to be sustained for at least 3 years to offset the costs associated with the initially high diagnostic and treatment costs involved in the delivery of primary care to an uninsured population.
    Journal of health and human services administration 03/2012; 34(4):456-70.
Show more