Search

Abstract Background Ambulatory access to academic medical centers (AMCs) for patients insured with Medi-Cal (i.e., Medicaid in California) is understudied, particularly among the 85% of beneficiaries enrolled in managed care plans. As more AMCs develop partnerships with these plans, data on patient experiences of access to care and quality are needed to guide patient-centered improvements in care delivery. Methods The authors conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with Medi-Cal-insured patients with initial visits at a large, urban AMC during 2022. Participant recruitment was informed by a database of ambulatory Medi-Cal encounters. The interview guide covered Medi-Cal enrollment, scheduling, and visit experience. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded, then organized into themes across four domains: access, affordability, patient-provider interactions, and continuity. Results Twenty participant interviews were completed (55% female, 85% English speaking, 80% self-identified minority or “other” race, and 30% Hispanic or Latino) with primary and/or specialty care visits. Within the access domain, participants reported delays with Medi-Cal enrollment and access to specialist care or testing, though appointment scheduling was reported to be easy. Affordability concerns included out-of-pocket medical and parking costs, and missed income when patients or families skipped work to facilitate care coordination. Participants considered clear, bilateral communication with providers fundamental to positive patient-provider interactions. Some participants perceived discrimination by providers based on their insurance status. Participants valued continuity, but experienced frustration arising from frequent and unexpected health plan changes that disrupted care with their established AMC providers. Conclusions The missions of AMCs typically focus on clinical care, education, research, and equity. However, reports from Medi-Cal insured patients receiving care at AMCs highlight their stress and confusion related to inconsistent provider access, uncompensated costs, variability in perceptions of quality, and fragmented care. Recommendations based upon patient-reported concerns suggest opportunities for AMC health system-level improvements that are compatible with AMC missions.

Abstract Background While insurance is integral for accessing healthcare in the US, coverage alone may not ensure access, especially for those publicly insured. Access barriers for Medicaid-insured patients are rooted in social drivers of health, insurance complexities in the setting of managed care plans, and federal- and state-level policies. Elucidating barriers at the health system level may reveal opportunities for sustainable solutions. Methods To understand barriers to ambulatory care access for patients with Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program) and identify improvement opportunities, we performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of a referred sample of clinicians and administrative staff members experienced with clinical patient encounters and/or completion of referral processes for patients with Medi-Cal (n = 19) at a large academic medical center. The interview guide covered the four process steps to accessing care within the health system: (1) scheduling, (2) referral and authorization, (3) contracting, and (4) the clinical encounter. We transcribed and inductively coded the interviews, then organized themes across the four steps to identify perceptions of barriers to access and improvement opportunities for ambulatory care for patients with Medi-Cal. Results Clinicians and administrative staff members at a large academic medical center revealed barriers to ambulatory care access for Medi-Cal insured patients, including lack of awareness of system-level policy, complexities surrounding insurance contracting, limited resources for social support, and poor dissemination of information to patients. Particularly, interviews revealed how managed Medi-Cal impacts academic health systems through additional time and effort by frontline staff to facilitate patient access compared to fee-for-service Medi-Cal. Interviewees reported that this resulted in patient care delays, suboptimal care coordination, and care fragmentation. Conclusions Our findings highlight gaps in system-level policy, inconsistencies in pursuing insurance authorizations, limited resources for scheduling and social work support, and poor dissemination of information to and between providers and patients, which limit access to care at an academic medical center for Medi-Cal insured patients. Many interviewees additionally shared the moral injury that they experienced as they witnessed patient care delays in the absence of system-level structures to address these barriers. Reform at the state, insurance organization, and institutional levels is necessary to form solutions within Medi-Cal innovation efforts.

Abstract Academic seminars are an important venue through which investigators in health services research (HSR) and other clinical and translational science disciplines can share their work, gather feedback, and connect with colleagues. However, the format and focus of these seminars shifted abruptly when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic necessitated social distancing and underscored the salience of health equity. Little is known about how contemporary academic seminars are meeting the evolving needs of the HSR community. We surveyed 2021–2022 participants in a virtual HSR seminar series to understand experiences of and priorities for the seminars. We also compared results stratified by self‐reported under‐represented minority (URM) status. Of 45 respondents (including 26 faculty members, 8 trainees, 9 staff members, and 2 community partners), 38% self‐identified as URM. Participants reported high satisfaction with seminar quality, diversity of topics, and audience participation (median ≥4 for all outcomes in Likert‐scaled items where 5 = very satisfied). Knowledge acquisition, understanding of research methods, and collaboration were commonly cited as benefits of seminar attendance. Implementation science content and external collaboration were most often endorsed as priorities for future seminars. URM participants were over three times more likely than non‐URM participants to cite learning about engaging community stakeholders and historically excluded populations as a benefit of seminar participation. Virtual academic seminars can be an effective modality for knowledge sharing and collaboration worth continuing after COVID‐19 restrictions are lifted. Emphasizing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) values in these seminars may hold potential for advancing academic departments' own EDI goals.