This document provides an overview of community health centers in the United States. It contains sections on who health centers serve (largely low-income, minority, uninsured or publicly insured populations), their growth over time, the access to care they provide, preventive services offered, efforts to reduce health disparities, cost-effective care, financial challenges, importance of Medicaid funding, and remaining challenges. The document uses charts and figures to illustrate trends and comparisons between health center patient populations and national averages.
Achieving Universal Coverage through Comprehensive Health Reform: The Vermont...soder145
Presentation by Ronald Deprez at the AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting adjunct State Health Research and Policy Interest Group meeting panel, "Early Results from the State Health Access Reform Evaluation (SHARE) Program," Chicago, IL, June 27 2009.
Achieving Universal Coverage through Comprehensive Health Reform: The Vermont...soder145
Presentation by Ronald Deprez at the AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting adjunct State Health Research and Policy Interest Group meeting panel, "Early Results from the State Health Access Reform Evaluation (SHARE) Program," Chicago, IL, June 27 2009.
Speaker Presentation from U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow leadership summit, November 2-4, 2016 in Washington, DC. Find out more about this forum at www.usnewshot.com.
Patient-Centered Medical Home: The Process and InitiativeGreenway Health
Learn more about the process and initiative of the Patient-Centered Medical Home model. This slideshow highlights the legislation, programs involved, and how to receive the PCMH certification and incentive funds.
How much money have the Meaningful Use Incentive Programs paid so far? Which states are the biggest adopters of new health care technology and which ones are behind? Discover the total amount providers, hospitals and eligible professionals are getting paid in Medicare and Medicaid incentives.
State of the US healthcare industry - a compilation of infographics 2014Dr. Susan Dorfman
2014 is the year of healthcare reform! The internet is full of amazing information showcasing the scope of the reform and its current successes and struggles - as well as the impact it will have on the varying healthcare stakeholders, from healthcare professionals to institutions, patients and pharmaceutical manufacturers
Speaker Presentation from U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow leadership summit, November 2-4, 2016 in Washington, DC. Find out more about this forum at www.usnewshot.com.
Patient-Centered Medical Home: The Process and InitiativeGreenway Health
Learn more about the process and initiative of the Patient-Centered Medical Home model. This slideshow highlights the legislation, programs involved, and how to receive the PCMH certification and incentive funds.
How much money have the Meaningful Use Incentive Programs paid so far? Which states are the biggest adopters of new health care technology and which ones are behind? Discover the total amount providers, hospitals and eligible professionals are getting paid in Medicare and Medicaid incentives.
State of the US healthcare industry - a compilation of infographics 2014Dr. Susan Dorfman
2014 is the year of healthcare reform! The internet is full of amazing information showcasing the scope of the reform and its current successes and struggles - as well as the impact it will have on the varying healthcare stakeholders, from healthcare professionals to institutions, patients and pharmaceutical manufacturers
Describe rationale for free care in Providence Rhode Island, the mission and aims of the Clinica Esperanza / Hope Clinic, the current patient demographics, and plans for the future.
Anne C. Beale, MD, MPH, the president of the Aetna Foundation speaks about disparities in child health care, the causes behind those disparities, and policies that can reduce them.
Catastrohpic out-of-pocket payment for health care and its impact on househol...Jeff Knezovich
Henry Lucas presents briefly on findings from a study on catastrophic out-of-pocket payments for health care in West Bengal, India at the 2011 iHEA conference in Toronto, Canada.
The goal of this webinar is to help healthcare professionals improve care coordination for patients with advanced illness and to reduce hospital readmissions and length of stay (LOS).
California pays a lot for health care, not so much for keeping people healthyΔρ. Γιώργος K. Κασάπης
California spends a lot on health care to treat its residents, but relatively little to ensure they are healthy, according to a new report. In 2018, for every $1 that California spent on health care services, it spent just $0.68 on other aspects of health, including social and public health services. That “other” figure is down by nearly half — from $1.22 — since 2007. While California’s total health care spending has grown nearly 150% since that year, spending on other services grew by around 40%. The report’s authors say that the state could rein in some of its $119 billion budget by cutting back on wasted costs, including unnecessary medical services. But it could also invest in community aspects of care tied to improved health, including raising the minimum wage and investing in public health, education, and other social programs.
Economic Impact on Minnesota's Health Care Delivery Systemsoder145
Presentation by Lynn Blewett to the Minnesota State Legislature at a joint meeting of the health care and human services finance and policy committees in Saint Paul, MN, February 10 2009.
Single Payer Systems: Equity in Access to Caresoder145
Presentation by Lynn Blewett at "The True Workings of Single Payer Systems: Lessons or Warnings for U.S. Reform' conference sponsored by the Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, May 10 2008.
Did you have time to read the 1,990 page healthcare bill that was recently passed through Congress? Have you since wondered about the impact that massive bill will have on the average American, health insurance providers, business owners and YOU? If yes, then join the Young Professionals of Chicago as we host a panel of diverse health care professionals that will be discussing current healthcare reform and taking questions on the impact of the United States' new healthcare policy. The distinguished panelists will also provide some insight and clarity into what this massive bill means for individuals like you. There will also be an opportunity for open networking with other young professionals before and after the discussion.
Roadmap for Universal Health Care. FDR, PHFI, and Loksatta are convening a Roundtable of experts, thinkers and practitioners to have a purposive dialogue and help evolve a viable, effective model of universal healthcare delivery in India
These simplified slides by Dr. Sidra Arshad present an overview of the non-respiratory functions of the respiratory tract.
Learning objectives:
1. Enlist the non-respiratory functions of the respiratory tract
2. Briefly explain how these functions are carried out
3. Discuss the significance of dead space
4. Differentiate between minute ventilation and alveolar ventilation
5. Describe the cough and sneeze reflexes
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 39, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 34, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
3. Chapter 17, Human Physiology by Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
4. Non-respiratory functions of the lungs https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/13/3/98/278874
TEST BANK for Operations Management, 14th Edition by William J. Stevenson, Ve...kevinkariuki227
TEST BANK for Operations Management, 14th Edition by William J. Stevenson, Verified Chapters 1 - 19, Complete Newest Version.pdf
TEST BANK for Operations Management, 14th Edition by William J. Stevenson, Verified Chapters 1 - 19, Complete Newest Version.pdf
NVBDCP.pptx Nation vector borne disease control programSapna Thakur
NVBDCP was launched in 2003-2004 . Vector-Borne Disease: Disease that results from an infection transmitted to humans and other animals by blood-feeding arthropods, such as mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas. Examples of vector-borne diseases include Dengue fever, West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and malaria.
The prostate is an exocrine gland of the male mammalian reproductive system
It is a walnut-sized gland that forms part of the male reproductive system and is located in front of the rectum and just below the urinary bladder
Function is to store and secrete a clear, slightly alkaline fluid that constitutes 10-30% of the volume of the seminal fluid that along with the spermatozoa, constitutes semen
A healthy human prostate measures (4cm-vertical, by 3cm-horizontal, 2cm ant-post ).
It surrounds the urethra just below the urinary bladder. It has anterior, median, posterior and two lateral lobes
It’s work is regulated by androgens which are responsible for male sex characteristics
Generalised disease of the prostate due to hormonal derangement which leads to non malignant enlargement of the gland (increase in the number of epithelial cells and stromal tissue)to cause compression of the urethra leading to symptoms (LUTS
New Directions in Targeted Therapeutic Approaches for Older Adults With Mantl...i3 Health
i3 Health is pleased to make the speaker slides from this activity available for use as a non-accredited self-study or teaching resource.
This slide deck presented by Dr. Kami Maddocks, Professor-Clinical in the Division of Hematology and
Associate Division Director for Ambulatory Operations
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, will provide insight into new directions in targeted therapeutic approaches for older adults with mantle cell lymphoma.
STATEMENT OF NEED
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) accounting for 5% to 7% of all lymphomas. Its prognosis ranges from indolent disease that does not require treatment for years to very aggressive disease, which is associated with poor survival (Silkenstedt et al, 2021). Typically, MCL is diagnosed at advanced stage and in older patients who cannot tolerate intensive therapy (NCCN, 2022). Although recent advances have slightly increased remission rates, recurrence and relapse remain very common, leading to a median overall survival between 3 and 6 years (LLS, 2021). Though there are several effective options, progress is still needed towards establishing an accepted frontline approach for MCL (Castellino et al, 2022). Treatment selection and management of MCL are complicated by the heterogeneity of prognosis, advanced age and comorbidities of patients, and lack of an established standard approach for treatment, making it vital that clinicians be familiar with the latest research and advances in this area. In this activity chaired by Michael Wang, MD, Professor in the Department of Lymphoma & Myeloma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, expert faculty will discuss prognostic factors informing treatment, the promising results of recent trials in new therapeutic approaches, and the implications of treatment resistance in therapeutic selection for MCL.
Target Audience
Hematology/oncology fellows, attending faculty, and other health care professionals involved in the treatment of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).
Learning Objectives
1.) Identify clinical and biological prognostic factors that can guide treatment decision making for older adults with MCL
2.) Evaluate emerging data on targeted therapeutic approaches for treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory MCL and their applicability to older adults
3.) Assess mechanisms of resistance to targeted therapies for MCL and their implications for treatment selection
Ozempic: Preoperative Management of Patients on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Saeid Safari
Preoperative Management of Patients on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists like Ozempic and Semiglutide
ASA GUIDELINE
NYSORA Guideline
2 Case Reports of Gastric Ultrasound
micro teaching on communication m.sc nursing.pdfAnurag Sharma
Microteaching is a unique model of practice teaching. It is a viable instrument for the. desired change in the teaching behavior or the behavior potential which, in specified types of real. classroom situations, tends to facilitate the achievement of specified types of objectives.
Acute scrotum is a general term referring to an emergency condition affecting the contents or the wall of the scrotum.
There are a number of conditions that present acutely, predominantly with pain and/or swelling
A careful and detailed history and examination, and in some cases, investigations allow differentiation between these diagnoses. A prompt diagnosis is essential as the patient may require urgent surgical intervention
Testicular torsion refers to twisting of the spermatic cord, causing ischaemia of the testicle.
Testicular torsion results from inadequate fixation of the testis to the tunica vaginalis producing ischemia from reduced arterial inflow and venous outflow obstruction.
The prevalence of testicular torsion in adult patients hospitalized with acute scrotal pain is approximately 25 to 50 percent
Tom Selleck Health: A Comprehensive Look at the Iconic Actor’s Wellness Journeygreendigital
Tom Selleck, an enduring figure in Hollywood. has captivated audiences for decades with his rugged charm, iconic moustache. and memorable roles in television and film. From his breakout role as Thomas Magnum in Magnum P.I. to his current portrayal of Frank Reagan in Blue Bloods. Selleck's career has spanned over 50 years. But beyond his professional achievements. fans have often been curious about Tom Selleck Health. especially as he has aged in the public eye.
Follow us on: Pinterest
Introduction
Many have been interested in Tom Selleck health. not only because of his enduring presence on screen but also because of the challenges. and lifestyle choices he has faced and made over the years. This article delves into the various aspects of Tom Selleck health. exploring his fitness regimen, diet, mental health. and the challenges he has encountered as he ages. We'll look at how he maintains his well-being. the health issues he has faced, and his approach to ageing .
Early Life and Career
Childhood and Athletic Beginnings
Tom Selleck was born on January 29, 1945, in Detroit, Michigan, and grew up in Sherman Oaks, California. From an early age, he was involved in sports, particularly basketball. which played a significant role in his physical development. His athletic pursuits continued into college. where he attended the University of Southern California (USC) on a basketball scholarship. This early involvement in sports laid a strong foundation for his physical health and disciplined lifestyle.
Transition to Acting
Selleck's transition from an athlete to an actor came with its physical demands. His first significant role in "Magnum P.I." required him to perform various stunts and maintain a fit appearance. This role, which he played from 1980 to 1988. necessitated a rigorous fitness routine to meet the show's demands. setting the stage for his long-term commitment to health and wellness.
Fitness Regimen
Workout Routine
Tom Selleck health and fitness regimen has evolved. adapting to his changing roles and age. During his "Magnum, P.I." days. Selleck's workouts were intense and focused on building and maintaining muscle mass. His routine included weightlifting, cardiovascular exercises. and specific training for the stunts he performed on the show.
Selleck adjusted his fitness routine as he aged to suit his body's needs. Today, his workouts focus on maintaining flexibility, strength, and cardiovascular health. He incorporates low-impact exercises such as swimming, walking, and light weightlifting. This balanced approach helps him stay fit without putting undue strain on his joints and muscles.
Importance of Flexibility and Mobility
In recent years, Selleck has emphasized the importance of flexibility and mobility in his fitness regimen. Understanding the natural decline in muscle mass and joint flexibility with age. he includes stretching and yoga in his routine. These practices help prevent injuries, improve posture, and maintain mobilit
Flu Vaccine Alert in Bangalore Karnatakaaddon Scans
As flu season approaches, health officials in Bangalore, Karnataka, are urging residents to get their flu vaccinations. The seasonal flu, while common, can lead to severe health complications, particularly for vulnerable populations such as young children, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions.
Dr. Vidisha Kumari, a leading epidemiologist in Bangalore, emphasizes the importance of getting vaccinated. "The flu vaccine is our best defense against the influenza virus. It not only protects individuals but also helps prevent the spread of the virus in our communities," he says.
This year, the flu season is expected to coincide with a potential increase in other respiratory illnesses. The Karnataka Health Department has launched an awareness campaign highlighting the significance of flu vaccinations. They have set up multiple vaccination centers across Bangalore, making it convenient for residents to receive their shots.
To encourage widespread vaccination, the government is also collaborating with local schools, workplaces, and community centers to facilitate vaccination drives. Special attention is being given to ensuring that the vaccine is accessible to all, including marginalized communities who may have limited access to healthcare.
Residents are reminded that the flu vaccine is safe and effective. Common side effects are mild and may include soreness at the injection site, mild fever, or muscle aches. These side effects are generally short-lived and far less severe than the flu itself.
Healthcare providers are also stressing the importance of continuing COVID-19 precautions. Wearing masks, practicing good hand hygiene, and maintaining social distancing are still crucial, especially in crowded places.
Protect yourself and your loved ones by getting vaccinated. Together, we can help keep Bangalore healthy and safe this flu season. For more information on vaccination centers and schedules, residents can visit the Karnataka Health Department’s official website or follow their social media pages.
Stay informed, stay safe, and get your flu shot today!
Title: Sense of Smell
Presenter: Dr. Faiza, Assistant Professor of Physiology
Qualifications:
MBBS (Best Graduate, AIMC Lahore)
FCPS Physiology
ICMT, CHPE, DHPE (STMU)
MPH (GC University, Faisalabad)
MBA (Virtual University of Pakistan)
Learning Objectives:
Describe the primary categories of smells and the concept of odor blindness.
Explain the structure and location of the olfactory membrane and mucosa, including the types and roles of cells involved in olfaction.
Describe the pathway and mechanisms of olfactory signal transmission from the olfactory receptors to the brain.
Illustrate the biochemical cascade triggered by odorant binding to olfactory receptors, including the role of G-proteins and second messengers in generating an action potential.
Identify different types of olfactory disorders such as anosmia, hyposmia, hyperosmia, and dysosmia, including their potential causes.
Key Topics:
Olfactory Genes:
3% of the human genome accounts for olfactory genes.
400 genes for odorant receptors.
Olfactory Membrane:
Located in the superior part of the nasal cavity.
Medially: Folds downward along the superior septum.
Laterally: Folds over the superior turbinate and upper surface of the middle turbinate.
Total surface area: 5-10 square centimeters.
Olfactory Mucosa:
Olfactory Cells: Bipolar nerve cells derived from the CNS (100 million), with 4-25 olfactory cilia per cell.
Sustentacular Cells: Produce mucus and maintain ionic and molecular environment.
Basal Cells: Replace worn-out olfactory cells with an average lifespan of 1-2 months.
Bowman’s Gland: Secretes mucus.
Stimulation of Olfactory Cells:
Odorant dissolves in mucus and attaches to receptors on olfactory cilia.
Involves a cascade effect through G-proteins and second messengers, leading to depolarization and action potential generation in the olfactory nerve.
Quality of a Good Odorant:
Small (3-20 Carbon atoms), volatile, water-soluble, and lipid-soluble.
Facilitated by odorant-binding proteins in mucus.
Membrane Potential and Action Potential:
Resting membrane potential: -55mV.
Action potential frequency in the olfactory nerve increases with odorant strength.
Adaptation Towards the Sense of Smell:
Rapid adaptation within the first second, with further slow adaptation.
Psychological adaptation greater than receptor adaptation, involving feedback inhibition from the central nervous system.
Primary Sensations of Smell:
Camphoraceous, Musky, Floral, Pepperminty, Ethereal, Pungent, Putrid.
Odor Detection Threshold:
Examples: Hydrogen sulfide (0.0005 ppm), Methyl-mercaptan (0.002 ppm).
Some toxic substances are odorless at lethal concentrations.
Characteristics of Smell:
Odor blindness for single substances due to lack of appropriate receptor protein.
Behavioral and emotional influences of smell.
Transmission of Olfactory Signals:
From olfactory cells to glomeruli in the olfactory bulb, involving lateral inhibition.
Primitive, less old, and new olfactory systems with different path
3. Table of Contents
Preface
Section I: Who Health Centers Serve
Figure 1.1 Who Health Centers Serve
Figure 1.2 Health Center Patients Are Predominately Low Income
Figure 1.3 Racial and Ethnic Minorities Make Up Two-Thirds of All Health Center Patients
Figure 1.4 Most Health Center Patients are Uninsured or Publicly Insured
Figure 1.5 Health Center Patient Mix Is Unique Among Ambulatory Care Providers
Figure 1.6 Health Center Patients Range in Age
Figure 1.7 Health Center Patients are Generally More Likely to Have a Chronic Illness
than Patients of Office-Based Physicians
Section II: Health Center Growth
Figure 2.1 Health Center Patients and Patient Visits Continues to Grow
Figure 2.2 Health Center Visit Rates Are On the Rise
Figure 2.3 The Number of Health Centers Receiving Federal Health Center Grants Has
Increased Dramatically
Figure 2.4 Growth in Health Center Patients by Insurance Status, 1999-2005
Figure 2.5 The Number of Health Center Low Income Patients vs. Low Income
Nationally, 2000-2005
Figure 2.6 The Number of Health Center Medicaid Patients vs. Medicaid Patients
Nationally, 2000-2005
Figure 2.7 The Number of Health Center Uninsured Patients vs. Uninsured
Nationally, 2000-2005
Figure 2.8 Growth in Health Center Patients and Patients with Chronic Conditions,
2001 -2005
4. Section III: Access to Care
Figure 3.1 Health Centers Provide 22% of all Uninsured Ambulatory Care Visits
Figure 3.2 Health Center Uninsured Patients Receive More Care than the Uninsured
Nationally
Figure 3.3 Health Center Uninsured and Medicaid Patients are More Likely to
have a Usual Source of Care than the U.S. Privately Insured
Figure 3.4 Health Center Uninsured Patients are Twice as Likely to Get the
Care They Need than Other Uninsured
Figure 3.5 Percent of State Low-income, Uninsured Served by Health Centers, 2005
Figure 3.6 Percent of State Medicaid Beneficiaries Served by Health Centers, 2005
Section IV: Preventive Services
Figure 4.1 Health Center Patient Visits by Type of Service
Figure 4.2 Growth in Health Center Dental & Mental Health Care, 2000-2005
Figure 4.3 Health Center Diabetes Patients Receive More Care than Other Low Income
Diabetics
Figure 4.4 Health Center Uninsured Patients Receive More Health Promotion
Counseling than the Uninsured Nationally
Figure 4.5 Health Center Medicaid Patients Receive More Health Promotion
Counseling than the Medicaid Nationally
Figure 4.6 ‘Amount of Physical Activity’ Discussed with Adults
Figure 4.7 ‘Whether Smokes/Uses Tobacco’ Discussed with Adults
Figure 4.8 ‘How Much/Often Drinks Alcohol’ Discussed with Adults
Section V: High Quality Care and Reducing Health Disparities
Figure 5.1 Nearly All Health Center Patients Report that They Have a Usual Source of
Care, 2002
Figure 5.2 Health Centers Reduce Disparities in Access to Mammograms
Figure 5.3 Health Centers Also Reduce Disparities in Access to Pap Tests
Figure 5.4 Health Center Patients Have Lower Rates of Low Birth Weight Than the U.S.
Average
Figure 5.5 Health Centers Decrease the Rate of Low Birth Weight Babies
5. Figure 5.6 Health Center Patients Have Lower Rates of Low Birth Weight than
Their U.S. Counterparts
Figure 5.7 The Number of Health Center Patients Needing Care in Languages other than
English Has Risen 54%
Figure 5.8 As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents, States’
Black/White Health Disparities in Infant Mortality Decline Significantly
Figure 5.9 As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents, States’
Black/White Health Disparities in Early Prenatal Care Decline Significantly
Figure 5.10 As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents, States’
Black/White Health Disparities in Overall Mortality Decline Significantly
Figure 5.11 As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents, States’
Hispanic/White Health Disparities in Early Prenatal Care Decline Significantly
Figure 5.12 As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents, States’
Hispanic/White Health Disparities in Tuberculosis Decline Significantly
Section VI: Providing Cost-Effective Care
Figure 6.1 Health Centers Generate Significant Savings for Medicaid
Figure 6.2 Fewer Health Center Medicaid Patients Experience Ambulatory Care Sensitive
Events
Figure 6.3 South Carolina Case Study: Costs Associated with Treating Medicaid
Diabetic Patients, 2000-2003
Figure 6.4 Health Centers Could Save Over $18 Billion Annually By Preventing Avoidable
ER Visits
Section VII: Health Centers’ Rising Costs of Care and Shrinking Revenues
Figure 7.1 Health Center Costs of Care Grow Slower than National Health
Expenditures, 1999-2005
6. Figure 7.2 Health Center Funding Has Not Kept Up With the Cost of Care
Figure 7.3 Payments from Third Party Payers Are Less than Cost
Figure 7.4 Health Center Operating Margins are Negligible and Lower than Hospital
Operating Margins
Section VIII: The Importance of Medicaid
Figure 8.1 Health Centers’ Revenue Sources Do Not Resemble Those of
Physician Practices
Figure 8.2 Medicaid Revenue is Directly Proportional to Medicaid Patients
Figure 8.3 Medicaid as a Percentage of Health Centers’ Revenues, 2004
Figure 8.4 Loss of Medicaid Cost-Based Payments Would Erase 15 % of TOTAL Revenue
Figure 8.5 Health Centers Have Moved Substantially Into Medicaid Managed Care
Participation
Section IX: Federal Funding
Figure 9.1 Recent Health Center Federal Appropriations History
Figure 9.2 Failure to Adjust Federal Grants Leads to Declines in Patient Care
Figure 9.3 Appropriations: Measuring Funding Results
Figure 9.4 Percent Change in National Federal Safety Net Spending and
Number of Uninsured, 2001-2004
Section X: Remaining Challenges
Figure 10.1 Major Challenges Facing Health Centers
Figure 10.2 Federal Grants are not Keeping Pace with Costs or Uninsured Patient
Growth
Figure 10.3 56 Million People Have No Access to A Primary Care Provider
Sources and Methodology
7. Preface
The National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) is pleased to present A Sketch of
Community Health Centers, an overview of the federal health centers program and the communities
they serve. Community Health Centers began over forty years ago as part of President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s declared “War on Poverty.” Their aim then, as it is now, is to provide affordable, high
quality and comprehensive primary care to medically underserved populations, regardless
of their insurance status or ability to pay. A growing number of health centers also provide
dental, behavioral, pharmacy, and other needed supplemental services. No two health centers are
alike but they all share one common purpose: to provide primary health care services that are
coordinated, culturally and linguistically competent, and community-directed.
Health centers play a critical role in the health care system as the health care home to nearly 16
million people. Across the country health centers produce positive results for their patients and for
the communities they serve. They stand as evidence that communities can improve health, reduce
health disparities, and deal with a multitude of costly and significant health and social problems –
including substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and homelessness – if they have the
resources and leadership to do so.
Although the health centers program has been very successful over the years in providing vital
health care services to those in need, the program faces many looming challenges. Rising costs,
narrowing revenue streams, and steady increases of newly uninsured and chronically ill patients
threaten health centers’ ability to meet growing need. Federal and state support is critically
important to keep pace with rising costs and escalating health care needs.
Who health centers serve, what they do, and their impressive record of accomplishment in keeping
communities healthy, is represented in the following charts.
9. Figure 1.1
Health Centers Serve…
• 1 in 9 Medicaid beneficiaries
• 1 in 7 uninsured persons, including
– 1 in 5 low income uninsured
• 1 in 4 people in poverty
• 1 in 10 minorities
• 1 in 9 rural Americans
10. Figure 1.2
Health Center Patients Are
Predominately Low Income
Over 200% FPL
8.5%
151-200% FPL
6.6%
100% FPL
101-150% FPL and Below
14.2% 70.8%
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.
11. Figure 1.3
Racial and Ethnic Minorities Make Up
Two-Thirds of All Health Center
Patients
African
American
White
23.0%
36.4%
American Indian/
Alaska Native
1.1%
Asian/
Pacific
Hispanic/ Islander
Latino 3.4%
36.1%
Note: Based on percent known. Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.
12. Figure 1.4
Most Health Center Patients
are Uninsured or Publicly Insured
Private
14.8%
Other Public*
2.3%
Uninsured
39.8%
Medicare
7.5%
Medicaid/
SCHIP
35.5%
* Other public may include non-Medicaid SCHIP and state-funded insurance programs.
Note: Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.
13. Figure 1.5
Health Center Patient Mix Is Unique
Among Ambulatory Care Providers
100% 2% 7% 8%
15%
8%
75% 37% Other/Unknown
56%
Private Insurance
40%
50% 16%
Medicare
9%
Uninsured
23%
25%
36% 31%
5% Medicaid
10%
0%
Health Centers Private Hospital
Physicians Outpatient
Depts.
Notes: Other public includes non-Medicaid SCHIP and other state-funded insurance programs. Health Center data are from 2005, private
physician and hospital outpatient data from 2004.
Sources: Health Center from 2005 Uniform Data System. Private Physicians from 2004 NAMCS (CDC National Center for Health Statistics,
2006). Hospital Outpatient from 2004 NHAMCS (CDC National Center for Health Statistics, 2006).
14. Figure 1.6
Health Center Patients Range in Age
Under 5
Ages 65+
12.0%
7.2%
Ages 5-12
Ages 45-64
13.1%
19.9%
Ages 13-19
11.6%
Ages 25-44
Ages 20-24
27.9%
8.3%
Note: Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.
15. Figure 1.7
Health Center Patients are Generally More
Likely to Have a Chronic Illness than Patients
of Office-Based Physicians
Office-Based Physician Patients Health Center Patients
7.6%
8%
6.7%
6.3%
5.4%
6%
4.5%
4%
2.8%
2.5%
2.0%
1.4% 1.4%
2%
0%
Mental Heart Disease Diabetes Asthma Hypertension
Disorders
Source: Rosenbaum et al. Health Centers as Safety Net Providers: An Overview and Assessment of Medicaid’s Role. Kaiser Commission
on Medicaid and the Uninsured. 2003. Center for Health Services Research and Policy analysis of 2004 UDS. Office-based physician data
based on 2002 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.
17. Figure 2.1
The Number of Health Center Patients
and Patient Visits Continues to Grow
In Millions
55.5
60
52.3
49.3
44.8
50
Patient Visits
40.2
38.3
Increased 45%
40
Since 2000
30
20 14.1
13.1
12.4
11.3
10.3
9.6
Patients
10
Increased 47% Since 2000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note: Excludes patients at non-Federally funded health centers, which treat an additional 1.5 million patients annually.
18. Figure 2.2
Health Center Visit Rates Are On the Rise
1994 2001
Number of Health Center Visits Per
100 Americans Per Year
10 8.9
8.2
8
5.7
6 5.1
4
2
0
All Patients Uninsured Patients
Source: O’Maley AS, et al. “Health Center Trends, 1994-2001: What Do They Project for the Federal Growth Initiative?” March/April 2005. Health
Affairs 2 4(2): 466-472.
19. Figure 2.3
The Number of Health Centers Receiving Federal
Health Center Grants Has Increased Dramatically
1000
950
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
20. Figure 2.4
Growth in Health Center Patients
by Insurance Status, 1999-2005
Patients In Millions
5.6
6 5.3 Uninsured
4.9
5 4.4 Medicaid
4.0 5.0
3.9
3.7 4.7
4 4.4
4.0
3.6
3
3.2 2.1
2.9 1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
2 Private
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.7 Medicare
1 0.7
0.3 Other Public
0.3 0.3
0.4
0.3 0.4
0.3
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
21. Figure 2.5
The Number of Health Center Low Income*
Patients Is Growing Faster than Low Income
Patients Nationally, 2000-2005
Percent Increase
64.2%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
11.2%
10%
0%
Health Center Low Income Low Income Nationally
* Patients under 200% of poverty.
Sources: US Census Historical Poverty Tables. “Table 5. Percent of People By Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970 to 2005.”
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov5.html. And “Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: 1959 to 2005.” www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html. Health Center Data from Uniform Data System.
22. Figure 2.6
The Number of Health Center Medicaid
Patients Is Growing Faster than Medicaid
Beneficiaries Nationally, 2000-2005
Percent Increase
55.9%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20.7%
20%
10%
0%
Health Center Medicaid Medicaid Nationally
Sources: US Census Bureau. Historical Health Insurance Tables. “Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex,
Race and Hispanic Origin: 1987 to 2005.quot; www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html. Health center from Uniform Data System.
23. Figure 2.7
The Number of Health Center Uninsured
Patients Is Growing Faster than the
Uninsured Nationally, 2000-2005
Percent Increase
45.7%
50%
40%
30%
20%
13.0%
10%
0%
Health Center Uninsured Uninsured Nationally
Sources: US Census Bureau. Historical Health Insurance Tables. quot;Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex,
Race and Hispanic Origin: 1987 to 2005.quot; www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html. Health center from Uniform Data System.
24. Figure 2.8
Growth in Health Center
Patients and Patients with Select Chronic
Conditions, 2001-2005
Percent Increase
64.0%
70%
54.5%
60%
50% 43.2%
37.5%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total Patients Patients with Patients with Patients with
Diabetes Hypertension Asthma
26. Figure 3.1
Health Centers Provide 22% of All
Uninsured Ambulatory Care Visits
Health **
Centers
22%
Private
Physicians*
52%
Hospital ER
20%
Hospital
Outpatient
Departments
7%
*Includes all non-federally employed physicians outside hospitals and federally-run facilities.
** Assumes the proportion of visits for the uninsured equals the proportion of patients that are uninsured.
Sources: Private Physicians from 2004 NAMCS (CDC National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). Hospital Outpatient and ER from 2004
NHAMCS (CDC National Center for Health Statistics, 2006). Health Center from 2004 Uniform Data System.
27. Figure 3.2
Health Center Uninsured Patients Receive
More Care than the Uninsured Nationally
Health Center Uninsured U.S. Uninsured
97.5%
100%
80%
64.9%
56.0%
60%
33.3%
40%
20%
0%
Has a Usual Source of Care 4 or More Doctor Visits/Year
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002,
Preliminary Tables August 2004; and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
28. Figure 3.3
Health Center Uninsured and Medicaid Patients
are More Likely to Have a Usual Source of Care
than the U.S. Privately Insured
Percent Reporting They Have a
Usual Source of Care
99.3%
97.4%
91.2%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Health Center Health Center U.S. Privately Insured
Uninsured Patients Medicaid Patients
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002,
Preliminary Tables August 2004; and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
29. Figure 3.4
Health Center Uninsured Patients are Twice
as Likely To Get the Care They Need than
Other Uninsured
Health Center Uninsured Other Uninsured
55%
60%
40%
30%
25% 24%
16%
20% 12%
0%
Delayed Care Due to Went Without Needed Could Not Fill Rx
Cost Care
Source: Politzer, R., et al. 2001. “Inequality in America: The Contribution of Health Centers in Reducing and Eliminating Disparities in Access to
Care.” Medical Care Research and Review 58(2):234-248.
30. Figure 3.5
Percent of Low-income, Uninsured
Served by Health Centers, 2005
DC
40% or greater
30-39 %
20-29 %
National Average = 20% 19% or less
Note: Under 200% of poverty.
Source: NACHC, Access to Community Health Databook, 2005. www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp.
31. Figure 3.6
Percent of State Medicaid Beneficiaries Served
by Health Centers, 2005
DC
25% or greater
15% - 24%
10% - 14%
National Average = 11%
9% or less
Source: NACHC, Access to Community Health Databook, 2005. www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp.
33. Figure 4.1
Health Center Patient Visits by Type of
Service
Behavioral Health
5%
Dental
Medical 10%
Care
Enabling
76%
Services*
7%
Other
2%
Total = 60 million encounters** in 2005
* Encounters for enabling services include visits to case managers and health educators.
** Estimate includes both federally funded and non-federally funded health centers.
34. Figure 4.2
Growth in Health Center Dental &
Mental Health Care, 2000-2005
Dental Care Mental Health Care
155.8%
160%
134.5%
140%
120%
84.9%
100%
76.0%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Patients Patient Visits
Note: Mental health does not include substance abuse.
35. Figure 4.3
Health Center Diabetes Patients Receive More
Care than Other Low Income Diabetics
Health Center Patients Low Income Nationally
78%
80%
67%
63% 62% 60%
52%*
60%
40%
26% 23%
20%
0%
Eye Exam Foot Exam Flu Shot** Pneumovax**
*p<0.05 **Age > 65 years
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002. Created by: BA Bartman, CQSB/DCQ/BPHC/HRSA, July 2004.
36. Figure 4.4
Health Center Uninsured Patients Receive
More Health Promotion Counseling than the
Uninsured Nationally
Health Center Uninsured U.S. Uninsured
100%
73%
80%
67%
65% 64% 62%
58% 54%
52%
60% 49%
45%
42%
38%
40%
20%
0%
STDs Drugs Diet Exercise Alcohol Smoking
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002. Created by: BA Bartman, CQSB/DCQ/BPHC/HRSA, July 2004.
37. Figure 4.5
Health Center Medicaid Patients Receive
More Health Promotion Counseling than
Medicaid Patients Nationally
Health Center Medicaid U.S. Medicaid
100%
82%
71%
80%
65%
61%
58% 54%
60% 49% 49% 48%
43%
37%
32%
40%
20%
0%
STDs Drugs Diet Exercise Alcohol Smoking
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002. Created by: BA Bartman, CQSB/DCQ/BPHC/HRSA, July 2004.
38. Figure 4.6
‘Amount of Physical Activity’
Discussed with Adults
80%
69.0%
65.0%
63.7%
53.6%
60%
Healthy
39.4% People 2000
40%
Goal (50%)
20%
0%
Health Center U.S. Adults Health Center Health Center U.S. Private
Adults Uninsured Medicaid Insured Adults
Adults Adults
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
39. Figure 4.7
‘Whether Smokes/Uses Tobacco’
Discussed with Adults
100%
Healthy People
82.2%
72.8% 73.4% 2000 Goal (75%)
63.2%
80%
54.4%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Health Center U.S. Adults Health Center Health Center U.S. Private
Adults Uninsured Medicaid Insured
Adults Adults Adults
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
40. Figure 4.8
‘How Much/Often Drinks Alcohol’
Discussed with Adults
100%
Healthy People
2000 Goal (75%)
66.7% 68.5% 70.6%
80%
60%
45.9%
40%
11.6%
20%
0%
Health Center U.S. Adults Health Center Health Center U.S. Private
Adults Uninsured Medicaid Insured Adults
Adults Adults
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
42. Figure 5.1
Nearly All Health Center Patients Report that
They Have a Usual Source of Care, 2002
98% 98% 98%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Non-hispanic white African American Hispanic
Source: AHRQ, “Focus on Federally Supported Health Centers,” National Healthcare Disparities
Report, 2004. http://www.qualitytools.ahrq.gov/disparitiesReport/browse/browse.aspx?id=4981
43. Figure 5.2
Health Centers Reduce Disparities in
Access to Mammograms
% of Women 40+ and <200%
FPL Receiving Mammograms
96%
100% 86%
88%
79% 78% 78%
75% 71%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Hispanic African American Medicaid Uninsured
Health Centers Nationally Healthy People 2010 Target (70%)
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
44. Figure 5.3
Health Centers Also Reduce Disparities
in Access to Pap Tests
% of Women 18+ and <200% FPL
Receiving Pap Smears in Last 3 Years
92% 89% 94%
95% 91%
100% 90% 86%
77%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Hispanic African American Medicaid Uninsured
Health Centers Nationally Health People 2010 Target (70%)
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. Based on Community Health Center User Survey, 2002;
and National Health Interview Survey, 2002.
45. Figure 5.4
Health Center Patients Have Lower Rates
of Low Birth Weight than the U.S. Average
8.4
U.S.
8.2
8.1
8
LBW Rate
7.7
7.8
7.6 7.9
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.4 Health Centers
7.2
7.0
7 7.1 7.1 7.1
7.0
6.8
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: Leiyu Shi, “The Role Of Health Centers In Improving Health Care Access, Quality, And Outcome For The Nation's Uninsured.”
Testimony At Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Congressional Hearing “A Review Of
Community Health Centers: Issues And Opportunities.” Washington, DC. May 25, 2005. US rates from National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) - Health U.S. 2005 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm. Health Center from Uniform Data System.
46. Figure 5.5
Health Centers Decrease the Rate of
Low Birth Weight Babies
% of Women Giving Birth to
Low Birth Weight Babies
African American Females
13.0%
Nationally
African American Female
9.9%
Health Center Patients
Rural African American
7.4%
Female Health Center
Patients
Source: Politzer, R., et al. 2001. “Inequality in America: The Contribution of Health Centers in Reducing and Eliminating Disparities in Access to
Care.” Medical Care Research and Review 58(2):234-248.
47. Figure 5.6
Health Center Patients Have Lower Rates of Low
Birth Weight than Their U.S. Counterparts
U.S. U.S. Low Income Health Center
14.9%
15%
13.0%
10.7%
10% 9.1%
8.2%
7.7% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.4%
6.8%
6.5%
6.6% 6.0%
5.6%
5%
0%
Total Asian Black Hispanic White
Year is 2004.
Source: Shi, L., et al. (2004). America’s health centers: Reducing racial and ethnic disparities in prenatal care and birth outcomes. Health
Services Research, 39(6), Part I, 1881-1901.
48. Figure 5.7
The Number of Health Center Patients
Needing Care in Languages Other than
English Has Risen 54%
Number of Patients
4,054
Preferring Languages Other 3,771
3,630
than English (in thousands)
3,286
2,895
2,633
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
49. Figure 5.8
As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents,
States’ Black/White Health Disparities in Infant Mortality
Decline Significantly
Black/White
10 8.5
Disparity
8.1
Per 1,000
live births 7.0
8
(median
black minus
6
white rate)
4
2
0 Percent of low income served by health centers
≤ 10% 10-20% ≥ 20%
AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY,
AL, CA, CT, IL,
LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, OH, NC, NE, CO, MA, RI, WA, WV
MS, NY, OR
NJ, NV, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI
Source: Shin P, Jones K, and Rosenbaum S. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Estimating the Impact of High Health Center
Penetration in Low-Income Communities. Prepared for the National Association of Community Health Centers, September 2003.
www.gwhealthpolicy.org/downloads/GWU_Disparities_Report.pdf.
50. Figure 5.9
As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents,
States’ Black/White Health Disparities in Early Prenatal Care
Decline Significantly
Black/White
14.9
Disparity
13.8
15
Percent
11.8
(median
black minus
white rate) 10
5
0
Percent of low income served by health centers
≤ 10% 10-20% ≥ 20%
AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY,
AL, CA, CT, IL, AK, CO, DC, HI,
LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV,
MS, NM, NY, OR MA, RI, WA, WV
OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WI
Source: Shin P, Jones K, and Rosenbaum S. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Estimating the Impact of High Health Center
Penetration in Low-Income Communities. Prepared for the National Association of Community Health Centers, September 2003.
www.gwhealthpolicy.org/downloads/GWU_Disparities_Report.pdf.
51. Figure 5.10
As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents,
States’ Black/White Health Disparities in Overall Mortality
Decline Significantly
Black/White 286.0
300
Disparity
Per 100,000
217.0
250
(median
black minus
200 166.5
white rate)
150
100
50
0 Percent of low income served by health centers
≤ 10% 10-20% ≥ 20 %
AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY,
AL, CA, CT, IL, AK, CO, DC, HI,
LA, MI, MD, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV,
MS, NM, NY, OR MA, RI, WA, WV
OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, UT, WI
Source: Shin P, Jones K, and Rosenbaum S. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Estimating the Impact of High Health Center
Penetration in Low-Income Communities. Prepared for the National Association of Community Health Centers, September 2003.
www.gwhealthpolicy.org/downloads/GWU_Disparities_Report.pdf.
52. Figure 5.11
As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents,
States’ Hispanic/White Health Disparities in Early Prenatal
Care Decline Significantly
Hispanic/ 20 17.5
White
15.3
Disparity
Percent 13.5
15
(median
Hispanic
minus white 10
rate)
5
0
Percent of low income served by health centers
≤ 10% 10-20% ≥ 20%
AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS,
AL, CA, CT, ID, IL, AK, CO, DC, MA,
KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE,
MS, NM, NY, OR RI, WA, WV
NJ, NH, NV, OH, OK, PA, TN, SC,
TX, UT, VA, WI, WY
Source: Shin P, Jones K, and Rosenbaum S. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Estimating the Impact of High Health Center
Penetration in Low-Income Communities. Prepared for the National Association of Community Health Centers, September 2003.
www.gwhealthpolicy.org/downloads/GWU_Disparities_Report.pdf.
53. Figure 5.12
As Health Centers Serve More Low Income State Residents,
States’ Hispanic/White Health Disparities in Health
Disparities in Tuberculosis Decline Significantly
Hispanic/ 10
8.5
White
7.8
Disparity
6.7
8
Cases Per
100,000
(median 6
Hispanic
minus white
4
rate)
2
0 Percent of low income served by health centers
≤ 10% 10-20% ≥ 20%
AR, AZ, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY,
LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE, AL, CA, CT, ID, IL, AK, CO, DC, HI,
NH, NJ, NV, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, MS, NM, NY, OR MA, RI, WA, WV
TN, TX, UT, VA, WI, WY
Source: Shin P, Jones K, and Rosenbaum S. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Estimating the Impact of High Health Center
Penetration in Low-Income Communities. Prepared for the National Association of Community Health Centers, September 2003.
www.gwhealthpolicy.org/downloads/GWU_Disparities_Report.pdf.
55. Figure 6.1
Compared to Medicaid Patients Treated
Elsewhere, Health Center Medicaid Patients…
• Are between 11% and 22% less likely to be
hospitalized for avoidable conditions
• Are 19% less likely to use the ER for avoidable
conditions
• Have lower hospital admission rates, lower
lengths of hospital stays, less costly admissions,
and lower outpatient and other care costs
Saving 30-33% in total costs per
Medicaid beneficiary
Sources: Falik et al. “Comparative Effectiveness of Health Centers as Regular Source of Care.” 2006 Journal of Ambulatory Care Management
29(1):24-35. Falik et al. “Ambulatory Care Sensitive Hospitalizations and Emergency Visits: Experiences of Medicaid Patients Using Federally Qualified Health Centers.” 2001
Medical Care 39(6):551-56. Duggar BC, et al. Health Services Utilization and Costs to Medicaid of AFDC Recipients in California Served and Not Served by Community Health
Centers. Center for Health Policy Studies, 1994. 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.
56. Figure 6.2
Fewer Health Center Medicaid Patients
Experience Ambulatory Care Sensitive Events
Number of Ambulatory Care Sensitive
(ACS) events per 100 persons
50 Health Centers Other Providers
38
40
26
30
20
8
6
10
0
ACS Hospital Admissions ACS Emergency Room Visits
Source: Falik et al. “Comparative Effectiveness of Health Centers as Regular Source of Care,” 2006
Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 29(1):24-35.
57. Figure 6.3
South Carolina Case Study: Costs
Associated with Treating Medicaid Diabetic
Patients, 2000-2003
Health Center Patients Family Practice Physician Patients
$3,112
$3,000
$1,991
$1,778
$2,000
$1,340
$1,000
$0
Average Annual PCP * Average Payment per
Payment per Patient Hospitalization
* Primary Care Physician
Source: South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 2004.
58. Figure 6.4
Health Centers Could Save Over $18 Billion
Annually By Preventing Avoidable ER Visits
Annual Wasted Expenditures on Avoidable Emergency Department Visits, 2006
North Dakota $ 41,491,015
Alabama $ 319,400,854 Kentucky $ 353,798,163
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 $ 401,458,842 Pennsylvania $ 790,754,728
Massachusetts
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
$ 55,797,643 Missouri $ 429,712,468 Tennessee $ 476,285,058
District of Columbia
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 $ 79,046,610 Virginia $ 452,375,606
New Hampshire
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 $ 548,645,880 Wyoming $ 36,360,931
North Carolina
United States $18,445,991,718
Source: NACHC 2006 Databook, www.nachc.com/research/ssbysdat.asp.
60. Figure 7.1
Health Center Costs of Care Grow Slower
than National Health Expenditures,
1999-2005
49.3%
50%
40%
25.8%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Health Center Costs Per Patient National Health Expenditures
Per Capita
Note: National Health Expenditures for 2005 are projected.
Sources: Heffler S, et al. (2005) quot;US Health Spending Projections for 2004-2014.quot; Health Affairs Web Exclusive w5-47. Smith C, et al. (2005)
quot;Health Spending Growth Slows in 2003.quot; Health Affairs 24(1):185-194. Levit K, et al. (2004) quot;Health Spending Rebound Continues in 2002.quot;
Health Affairs 23(1):147-159.
61. Figure 7.2
Health Center Funding Has Not Kept
Up with the Costs of Care
Annual Federal Health Center Funding per Uninsured Patient
Annual Health Center Cost per Patient
$600
$515
$504
$479
$455
$425
$406
$374
$400
$272 $270 $270
$260
$248
$226
$216
$200
$-
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note: Not adjusted for inflation. Federal appropriations are for consolidated health centers under PHSA Section 330. In 2004 and 2005,
uninsured patients grew faster than federal funding.
62. Figure 7.3
Payments from Third Party Payers Are
Less than Cost
Percent of Charges Collected from
Third Party Payers, 2005
100%
86.8%
80% 69.4% 66.1%
58.4%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Medicaid Medicare Other Public Private
Insurance Insurance
63. Figure 7.4
Health Center Operating Margins are
Negligible and Less than Hospital
Operating Margins
5.1%
5.5%
4.5% 4.3% 4.0%
3.9%
4.5% Hospitals
3.4%
3.5%
2.5%
1.3% Health
1.2% 1.0% Centers
0.9% 0.5% 0.9%
1.5%
0.5%
-0.5%
-0.2%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note: 2005 hospital data unavailable.
Source: Hospital from Healthcare Financial Management Association. “Declining Operating Margins Show US Hospitals Still Face Challenges.”
2006 http://www.solucient.com/articles/0206_DataTrends.pdf. Health Center data from Uniform Data System.
65. Figure 8.1
Health Centers’ Revenue Sources Do Not
Resemble Those of Physician Practices
Medicaid Private Medicare Self-pay
60%
59%
60%
40%
40% 36%
40%
21%
20% 14%
20%
8%
8%
5%
0% 0%
Health Center Private Physicians
Source: Center for Health Services Research and Policy Analysis with 2004 UDS (patients) and 2002 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (visits)
66. Figure 8.2
Medicaid Revenue is Directly
Proportional to Medicaid Patients
Grants/Contracts/Other
39.8% 41.8% Uninsured/Self-Pay
Private
6.5%
14.8%
6.5% Other Public Insurance
2.1%
2.3% 6.0%
7.5%
Medicare
37.0%
35.5% Medicaid
Patient Insurance Health Center
Status Revenue
2005 Notes: Percents may not total 100% due to rounding.
67. Figure 8.3
Medicaid as a Percentage of Health Centers’
Revenues, 2004
Less than 22.0%
22.0% to 29.9%
30.0% to 38.0%
More than 38.0%
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation State Facts Online. Based on NACHC analysis of 2004 Uniform Data system.
68. Figure 8.4
Loss of Medicaid Cost-Based Payments
Would Erase 15% of TOTAL Revenues
Other
Medicaid &
State/Local SCHIP
Federal
Grants
Medicaid
Revenue
Self-Pay LOSS
Patients Private Medicare
Note: By Federal law, Medicaid payment are based on cost and often through a prospective payment system. Reversing this law would erase
25-30% of Medicaid revenue for the average health center, or more than 15% of total revenue, through lowest payments.
69. Figure 8.5
Health Centers Have Moved Substantially
Into Medicaid Managed Care Participation
Percent of Medicaid health center
patients enrolled in managed care
80%
70% 64% 64% 63%
63% 63% 63% 60%
60% 56%
52%
47%
50%
40%
32%
30% 26%
19%
18%
20%
10% 8%
0%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note: Managed care does not include PCCM programs.
71. Figure 9.1
Recent Health Center Federal
Appropriations History
$2.0
$1.782
$1.735
$1.8 $1.618
$1.505
$1.6 $1.433
Funding in Billions
$1.4
$1.169
$1.2
$1.0
$0.8
$0.6
$0.4
$0.2
$0.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fiscal Year
Note: Federal appropriations are for consolidated health centers under PHSA Section 330.
72. Figure 9.2
Failure to Adjust Federal Grants Leads to
Declines in Patient Care
Average Number of
Encounters per Health Center
60,000
58,360
No Base
No Base 57,247
Grant
Grant Increase
Increase 55,415
in 2002
in 2000
55,000 53,902
53,117
53,091
52,457
50,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Note: Federal appropriations are for consolidated health centers under PHSA Section 330.
73. Figure 9.3
Appropriations:
Measuring Funding Results
Final vs.
Fiscal Admin. Final
Request
Year Request Approp.
2007 $+181 $+206/+145 ???
2006 $+304 $+48
2005 $+219 $+117
2004 $+122 $+113
2003 $+114 $+161
2002 $+124 $+175
Note: Federal appropriations are for consolidated health centers under PHSA Section 330.
74. Figure 9.4
Percent Change in National Federal Safety
Net Spending and Number of Uninsured,
2001-2004*
15%
11.2%
10%
Federal Safety
5%
Net Spending
1.3%
Per Uninsured
0%
Federal Spending on Number of
the Safety Net Uninsured
-5%
-10%
-8.9%
Note: Includes funding for all safety net services. Percent change in Inflation adjusted totals. Constant 2004 Dollars
Source: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. “Growth in Uninsured Americans Outpacing Federal Spending on the Health
Care Safety Net” 2005, http://www.kff.org/uninsured/kcmu110405nr.cfm.
76. Figure 10.1
Major Challenges Facing Health
Centers
Growth in Uninsured: Continue to be Largest
Group of Health Center Patients
Decline in Charity Care: Cutbacks by Private
Providers Squeezed by Managed Care
Loss of Medicaid and Other Public Funding:
Severe “Deficit Reduction” Cuts by States & now
Congress
Changing Nature of Insurance Coverage:
Growing Shift to Catastrophic/High-Deductible
Plans that Cover Little or no Preventive/Primary
Care
77. Figure 10.2
Federal Grants are not Keeping Pace with
Costs or Uninsured Patient Growth
Federal Grant as Percent of Uninsured Patient Costs
60%
58%
57%
56%
56%
54%
55%
52%
50%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
78. Figure 10.3
56 Million People Are Medically Disenfranchised
Percent of State Population Without Access to a Primary Care Provider, 2005
DE
DC
40% or greater
20 - 39.9%
19.9 -10%
Less than 9.9%
National Average = 19.4%
Note: Does not subtract health center patients as state and U.S. medically disenfranchised figures do.
Source: The Robert Graham Center. Health Services and Resource Administration (HPSA, MUA/MUP data, 2005 Uniform Data System), 2006
AMA Masterfile, Census Bureau 2005 population estimates, NACHC 2006 survey of non-federally funded health centers.
79. Sources and Methodology
Source: All figures, unless otherwise noted, come from NACHC, 2006. Based on
Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, DHHS, 2006 Uniform Data System. For more
information, email research@nachc.com.
Note: This chartbook includes data from Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)
who meet federal health center grant requirements and are required to report
administrative, clinical and other information to the Federal Bureau of Primary Health
Care. Only FQHCs receiving federal health center grants report data. Therefore,
unless otherwise noted, this chartbook does not always include data from a category
of FQHCs that does not receive these funds, known as FQHC Look-Alikes. Data
reflected in this chartbook may consequently underreport the volume of health care
delivered by health centers. There are approximately 100 FQHC Look-Alikes across
the United States.