[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The 2010 Affordable Care Act relies on Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and FQHC look-alikes (look-alikes) to provide care for newly insured patients, but ties increased funding to demonstrated quality and efficiency.
To compare FQHC and look-alike physician performance with private practice primary care physicians (PCPs) on ambulatory care quality measures.
The study was a cross-sectional analysis of visits in the 2006-2008 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Performance of FQHCs and look-alikes on 18 quality measures was compared with private practice PCPs. Data analysis was completed in 2011.
Compared to private practice PCPs, FQHCs and look-alikes performed better on six measures (p<0.05); worse on diet counseling in at-risk adolescents (26% vs 36%, p=0.05); and no differently on 11 measures. Higher performance occurred in ACE inhibitors use for congestive heart failure (51% vs 37%, p=0.004); aspirin use in coronary artery disease (CAD; 57% vs 44%, p=0.004); β-blocker use for CAD (59% vs 47%, p=0.01); no use of benzodiazepines in depression (91% vs 84%, p=0.008); blood pressure screening (90% vs 86%, p<0.001); and screening electrocardiogram (EKG) avoidance in low-risk patients (99% vs 93%, p<0.001). Adjusting for patient characteristics yielded similar results, except that private practice PCPs no longer performed better on any measures.
FQHCs and look-alikes demonstrated equal or better performance than private practice PCPs on select quality measures despite serving patients who have more chronic disease and socioeconomic complexity. These findings can provide policymakers with some reassurance as to the quality of chronic disease and preventive care at Federally Qualified Health Centers and look-alikes, as they plan to use these health centers to serve 20 million newly insured individuals.
American journal of preventive medicine 08/2012; 43(2):142-9. · 4.24 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used by US outpatient physicians. They could improve clinical care via clinical decision support (CDS) and electronic guideline-based reminders and alerts. Using nationally representative data, we tested the hypothesis that a higher quality of care would be associated with EHRs and CDS.
We analyzed physician survey data on 255,402 ambulatory patient visits in nonfederal offices and hospitals from the 2005-2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Based on 20 previously developed quality indicators, we assessed the relationship of EHRs and CDS to the provision of guideline-concordant care using multivariable logistic regression.
Electronic health records were used in 30% of an estimated 1.1 billion annual US patient visits. Clinical decision support was present in 57% of these EHR visits (17% of all visits). The use of EHRs and CDS was more likely in the West and in multiphysician settings than in solo practices. In only 1 of 20 indicators was quality greater in EHR visits than in non-EHR visits (diet counseling in high-risk adults, adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.26). Among the EHR visits, only 1 of 20 quality indicators showed significantly better performance in visits with CDS compared with EHR visits without CDS (lack of routine electrocardiographic ordering in low-risk patients, adjusted odds ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-4.90). There were no other significant quality differences.
Our findings indicate no consistent association between EHRs and CDS and better quality. These results raise concerns about the ability of health information technology to fundamentally alter outpatient care quality.
Archives of internal medicine 01/2011; 171(10):897-903. · 11.46 Impact Factor