Evaluating the Harris County TexHealth 3-Share plan: An exploratory study

An important health issue in the United States today is the large number of people who have problems accessing needed health care because they lack health insurance coverage. Providing health insurance coverage for the working uninsured is a particularly significant challenge in Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. In response to the low rate of employer-sponsored coverage in the Houston area and the growing numbers of uninsured, the Harris County Health Care Alliance (HCHA) developed and implemented the Harris County 3-Share Plan. A 3-Share Plan is not insurance, but provides health coverage in the form of a benefits package to employers who subscribe to the program and offer it to their employees. ^ A cross sectional study design was conducted to describe 3-Share employer and employee participants and evaluate their outcomes after its first year of operation. Between September and December 2011, 85% of employers enrolled in the 3-Share Plan completed a survey about the affordability of the 3-Share Plan, their satisfaction with the Plan, and the Plan's impact on employee recruitment, retention, and productivity. Forty-five percent of employees enrolled in the 3-Share Plan responded to a survey asking about the affordability of the 3-Share plan, accessibility of providers on the plan, satisfaction, and utilization of primary care providers and the ER. ^ A summary of the findings shows employers and employees say that they joined the plan because of the low-cost, and once they had participated in the Plan, the majority of employers and employees found that it is affordable for them. The majority of employees say they are getting access easily and without delay, but for those who aren't able to get access, or are delayed, the main cause is related to non-financial barriers to care. Ultimately, employees are satisfied with the 3-Share, and they plan to continue with health coverage under the 3-Share Plan. The 3-Share Plan will keep people in a system of care, and promote health, which will benefit the individuals, the businesses and the community of Harris County.^

Health outcomes, quality improvement and cost-effectiveness of the Community Diabetes Education (CoDE) program: Results of a randomized controlled trial

The objectives of this dissertation were to evaluate health outcomes, quality improvement measures, and the long-term cost-effectiveness and impact on diabetes-related microvascular and macrovascular complications of a community health worker-led culturally tailored diabetes education and management intervention provided to uninsured Mexican Americans in an urban faith-based clinic. A prospective, randomized controlled repeated measures design was employed to compare the intervention effects between: (1) an intervention group (n=90) that participated in the Community Diabetes Education (CoDE) program along with usual medical care; and (2) a wait-listed comparison group (n=90) that received only usual medical care. Changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and secondary outcomes (lipid status, blood pressure and body mass index) were assessed using linear mixed-models and an intention-to-treat approach. The CoDE group experienced greater reduction in HbA1c (-1.6%, p<.001) than the control group (-.9%, p<.001) over the 12 month study period. After adjusting for group-by-time interaction, antidiabetic medication use at baseline, changes made to the antidiabetic regime over the study period, duration of diabetes and baseline HbA1c, a statistically significant intervention effect on HbA1c (-.7%, p=.02) was observed for CoDE participants. Process and outcome quality measures were evaluated using multiple mixed-effects logistic regression models. Assessment of quality indicators revealed that the CoDE intervention group was significantly more likely to have received a dilated retinal examination than the control group, and 53% achieved a HbA1c below 7% compared with 38% of control group subjects. Long-term cost-effectiveness and impact on diabetes-related health outcomes were estimated through simulation modeling using the rigorously validated Archimedes Model. Over a 20 year time horizon, CoDE participants were forecasted to have less proliferative diabetic retinopathy, fewer foot ulcers, and reduced numbers of foot amputations than control group subjects who received usual medical care. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $355 per quality-adjusted life-year gained was estimated for CoDE intervention participants over the same time period. The results from the three areas of program evaluation: impact on short-term health outcomes, quantification of improvement in quality of diabetes care, and projection of long-term cost-effectiveness and impact on diabetes-related health outcomes provide evidence that a community health worker can be a valuable resource to reduce diabetes disparities for uninsured Mexican Americans. This evidence supports formal integration of community health workers as members of the diabetes care team.^

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^