TY - JOUR
AU - A. Mahmud
AU - E. S. Wong
AU - C. C. Lewis
AU - I. J. Ornelas
AU - R. Wellman
AU - R. Pardee
AU - S. Mun
AU - A. Piccorelli
AU - E. O. Westbrook
AU - H. D. Haan
AU - M. C. Brown
A1 - 
AB - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess differences in utilization outcomes among patients with social needs as part of a pilot social health integration program in 2 clinics in an integrated health system in the Pacific Northwest. METHODS: Patients who reported social needs between October 2022 and January 2023 were randomized to receive support from either local, clinic-based community resource specialists or a centralized Connections Call Center. The authors used administrative and claims data for 534 participants to compare the following utilization outcomes between arms over 9 months after randomization: primary care encounters, specialty care encounters, behavioral health encounters, emergency department encounters, inpatient admissions, urgent care encounters, and secure patient messages. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the authors used negative binomial regression models to compare visit counts and logistic regression to estimate differences in the probability of any emergency department visit or inpatient admissions between groups. The authors conducted secondary as-treated analyses comparing participants who received resource information from community resource specialists with those who did not. RESULTS: Unadjusted results showed no statistically significant differences between community resource specialists and Connections Call Center. Adjusted results showed that community resource specialist participants received 1.04 more primary care encounters than Connections Call Center participants (95% CI=0.336, 1.746). As-treated results showed that participants who received support from community resource specialists had higher counts of primary care encounters, specialty care encounters, and patient messages than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond social needs navigation, clinic-based supports may be better integrated with care teams to provide ongoing support for patients' medical needs. Findings from this primary care social health pilot program showed that local, clinic-based support was associated with greater outpatient utilization than a call center support.
AD - Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.; Veterans Administration Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
AN - 40242655
BT - AJPM Focus
C5 - Education & Workforce
CP - 3
DA - Jun
DO - 10.1016/j.focus.2025.100323
DP - NLM
ET - 20250215
IS - 3
JF - AJPM Focus
LA - eng
N2 - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess differences in utilization outcomes among patients with social needs as part of a pilot social health integration program in 2 clinics in an integrated health system in the Pacific Northwest. METHODS: Patients who reported social needs between October 2022 and January 2023 were randomized to receive support from either local, clinic-based community resource specialists or a centralized Connections Call Center. The authors used administrative and claims data for 534 participants to compare the following utilization outcomes between arms over 9 months after randomization: primary care encounters, specialty care encounters, behavioral health encounters, emergency department encounters, inpatient admissions, urgent care encounters, and secure patient messages. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the authors used negative binomial regression models to compare visit counts and logistic regression to estimate differences in the probability of any emergency department visit or inpatient admissions between groups. The authors conducted secondary as-treated analyses comparing participants who received resource information from community resource specialists with those who did not. RESULTS: Unadjusted results showed no statistically significant differences between community resource specialists and Connections Call Center. Adjusted results showed that community resource specialist participants received 1.04 more primary care encounters than Connections Call Center participants (95% CI=0.336, 1.746). As-treated results showed that participants who received support from community resource specialists had higher counts of primary care encounters, specialty care encounters, and patient messages than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond social needs navigation, clinic-based supports may be better integrated with care teams to provide ongoing support for patients' medical needs. Findings from this primary care social health pilot program showed that local, clinic-based support was associated with greater outpatient utilization than a call center support.
PY - 2025
SN - 2773-0654
SP - 100323
ST - Differences in Healthcare Utilization Across 2 Social Health Support Modalities: Results From a Randomized Pilot Evaluation
T1 - Differences in Healthcare Utilization Across 2 Social Health Support Modalities: Results From a Randomized Pilot Evaluation
T2 - AJPM Focus
TI - Differences in Healthcare Utilization Across 2 Social Health Support Modalities: Results From a Randomized Pilot Evaluation
U1 - Education & Workforce
U3 - 10.1016/j.focus.2025.100323
VL - 4
VO - 2773-0654
Y1 - 2025
ER -