Observational study protocol for evaluating control of hypertension and the effects of social determinants

Heather Angier, Nathalie Huguet, Miguel Marino, Beverly Green, Heather Holderness, Rachel Gold, Megan Hoopes, Jennifer DeVoe, Heather Angier, Nathalie Huguet, Miguel Marino, Beverly Green, Heather Holderness, Rachel Gold, Megan Hoopes, Jennifer DeVoe

Abstract

Introduction: Hypertension is a common chronic health condition. Having health insurance reduces hypertension risk; health insurance coverage could improve hypertension screening, treatment and management. The Medicaid eligibility expansion of the Affordable Care Act was ruled not to be required by the US Supreme Court. Subsequently, a 'natural experiment' was produced with some states expanding Medicaid eligibility while others did not. This presents a unique opportunity to learn whether and to what extent Medicaid expansion can affect healthcare access and services for patients at risk for and diagnosed with hypertension, and patients with undiagnosed hypertension. Additionally, social determinants of health (SDH), at both the individual- and community-level, influence diagnosis and care for hypertension and it is important to understand how they interact with health insurance coverage changes.

Methods/design: We will use electronic health record (EHR) data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network clinical data research network, which has data from community health centres in 22 states, some that did and some that did not expand Medicaid. Data include information on changes in health insurance, service receipt and health outcomes from 2012 through the most recent data available. We will include patients between the ages of 19 and 64 years (n=1 524 241) with ≥1 ambulatory visit to a community health centre. We will estimate differences in outcomes using difference-in-difference and difference-in-difference-in-difference approaches. We will test three-way interactions with insurance group, time and social determinants of health factors to compare the potential effect of gaining insurance on our proposed outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination: This study uses secondary data analysis and therefore approval for consent to participate was waived. The Institutional Review Board for OHSU approved this study. Approval reference number is: IRB00011858. We plan to disseminate our findings at relevant conferences, meetings and through peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03545763.

Keywords: affordable care act; community health centers; hypertension; medicaid; natural experiment.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High blood pressure fact sheet nd.
    1. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, et al. . Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011;123:933–44. 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820a55f5
    1. Rapsomaniki E, Timmis A, George J, et al. . Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people. Lancet 2014;383:1899–911. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60685-1
    1. Decker SL, Kostova D, Kenney GM, et al. . Health status, risk factors, and medical conditions among persons enrolled in Medicaid vs uninsured low-income adults potentially eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. JAMA 2013;309:2579–86. 10.1001/jama.2013.7106
    1. Ayanian JZ, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, et al. . Unmet health needs of uninsured adults in the United States. JAMA 2000;284:2061–9. 10.1001/jama.284.16.2061
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension--United States, 1999-2002 and 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:103–8.
    1. Mujahid MS, Diez Roux AV, Morenoff JD, et al. . Neighborhood characteristics and hypertension. Epidemiology 2008;19:590–8. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181772cb2
    1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. . Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the american heart association. Circulation 2016;133:e38–e360. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350
    1. Mujahid MS, Diez Roux AV, Cooper RC, et al. . Neighborhood stressors and race/ethnic differences in hypertension prevalence (the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). Am J Hypertens 2011;24:187–93. 10.1038/ajh.2010.200
    1. Levenstein S, Smith MW, Kaplan GA. Psychosocial predictors of hypertension in men and women. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1341–6. 10.1001/archinte.161.10.1341
    1. Lasser KE, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S. Access to care, health status, and health disparities in the United States and Canada: results of a cross-national population-based survey. Am J Public Health 2006;96:1300–7. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059402
    1. Booth JM, Jonassaint CR. The role of disadvantaged neighborhood environments in the association of John Henryism with hypertension and obesity. Psychosom Med 2016;78:552–61. 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000308
    1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. How does the Affordable Care Act address racial and ethnic disparities in health care? Issue Brief. Princeton, N.J, 2011.
    1. The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation. Status of state action on the Medicaid expansion decision. 2015. (Accessed 27 Sep 27 2016).
    1. Li S, Bruen BK, Lantz PM, et al. . Impact of health insurance expansions on nonelderly adults with hypertension. Prev Chronic Dis 2015;12:E105 10.5888/pcd12.150111
    1. Institute of Medicine. Capturing social and behavioral domains and measures in electronic health records: phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.
    1. Council on Community Pediatrics. Committee on Native American Child Health. Policy statement-health equity and children’s rights. Pediatrics 2010;125:838–49.
    1. Troseth MR. American academy of nursing endorses social behavioral determinants of health in electronic health records. Comput Inform Nurs 2017;35:329–30. 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000372
    1. DeVoe JE, Gold R, Cottrell E, et al. . The ADVANCE network: accelerating data value across a national community health center network. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21:591–5. 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002744
    1. National Association of Community Health Centers. A sketch of community health centers, chart book 2014. Bethesda, M.D, 2014.
    1. Peng M, Chen G, Kaplan GG, et al. . Methods of defining hypertension in electronic medical records: validation against national survey data. J Public Health 2016;38:e392–e399. 10.1093/pubmed/fdv155
    1. Gold R, Bailey SR, OʼMalley JP, et al. . Estimating demand for care after a medicaid expansion: lessons from Oregon. J Ambul Care Manage 2014;37:282–92. 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000023
    1. NCQA. HEDIS 2016. 2016. (Accessed 12 May 2016).
    1. Green BB, Anderson ML, Cook AJ, et al. . Using body mass index data in the electronic health record to calculate cardiovascular risk. Am J Prev Med 2012;42:342–7. 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.12.009
    1. Bazemore AW, Cottrell EK, Gold R, et al. . "Community vital signs": incorporating geocoded social determinants into electronic records to promote patient and population health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016;23:407–12. 10.1093/jamia/ocv088
    1. Lechner M. The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics 2011;4:165–224.
    1. Dean CB, Nielsen JD. Generalized linear mixed models: a review and some extensions. Lifetime Data Anal 2007;13:497–512. 10.1007/s10985-007-9065-x
    1. Teachman J. Latent growth curve models with random and fixed effects: Emerging Methods in Family Research: Springer International Publishing, 2014:3–17.
    1. Stuart EA, Huskamp HA, Duckworth K, et al. . Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2014;14:166–82. 10.1007/s10742-014-0123-z
    1. Hoffman C, Paradise J. Health insurance and access to health care in the United States. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008;1136:149–60. 10.1196/annals.1425.007
    1. Baicker K, Taubman SL, Allen HL, et al. . The Oregon experiment--effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1713–22. 10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
    1. Decker SL. Two-thirds of primary care physicians accepted new Medicaid patients in 2011-12: a baseline to measure future acceptance rates. Health Aff 2013;32:1183–7. 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0361
    1. Saloner B, Kenney G, Polsky D, et al. . The availability of new patient appointments for primary care at Federally Qualified Health Centers: findings from an audit study. 2014.
    1. Little TD, Schnabel KU, Baumert J. Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data 2000. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 2000.
    1. Zhang Z, Fang H, Wang H. Multiple Imputation based Clustering Validation (MIV) for big longitudinal trial data with missing values in eHealth. J Med Syst 2016;40:146 10.1007/s10916-016-0499-0
    1. Butler DC, Petterson S, Phillips RL, et al. . Measures of social deprivation that predict health care access and need within a rational area of primary care service delivery. Health Serv Res 2013;48(2 Pt 1):539–59. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01449.x

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera