Health care organizations in the United States have transformed at an unprecedented rate since March 2020 due to COVID-19, most notably with a shift to telemedicine. Despite rapidly adapting health care delivery in light of new safety considerations and a shifting insurance landscape, primary care offices across the country are facing drastic decreases in revenue and potential bankruptcy. To survive, primary care's adaptations will need to go beyond virtual versions of traditional office visits. Primary care is faced with a chance to redefine what it means to care for and support patients wherever they are. This opportunity to shape the "new normal" is a critical step for primary care to meet its full potential to lead a paradigm shift to patient-centered health care reform in America during this time when we need it most.

No abstract

Objective: To systematically review how safety-net hospitals' status is identified and defined, discuss current definitions' limitations, and provide recommendations for a new classification and evaluation framework. Data Sources: Safety-net hospital-related studies in the MEDLINE database published before May 16, 2019. Study Design: Systematic review of the literature that adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: We followed standard selection protocol, whereby studies went through an abstract review followed by a full-text screening for eligibility. For each included study, we extracted information about the identification method itself, including the operational definition, the dimension(s) of disadvantage reflected, study objective, and how safety-net status was evaluated. Principal Findings: Our review identified 132 studies investigating safety-net hospitals. Analysis of identification methodologies revealed substantial heterogeneity in the ways disadvantage is defined, measured, and summarized at the hospital level, despite a 4.5-fold increase in studies investigating safety-net hospitals for the past decade. Definitions often exclusively used low-income proxies captured within existing health system data, rarely incorporated external social risk factor measures, and were commonly separated into distinct safety-net status categories when analyzed. Conclusions: Consistency in research and improvement in policy both require a standard definition for identifying safety-net hospitals. Yet no standardized definition of safety-net hospitals is endorsed and existing definitions have key limitations. Moving forward, approaches rooted in health equity theory can provide a more holistic framework for evaluating disadvantage at the hospital level. Furthermore, advancements in precision public health technologies make it easier to incorporate detailed neighborhood-level social determinants of health metrics into multidimensional definitions. Other countries, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have used similar methods of identifying social need to determine more accurate assessments of hospital performance and the development of policies and targeted programs for improving outcomes.

Neighborhood disadvantage reflects historic and ongoing systemic injustices.Without addressing these upstream social determinants of health, hospitals may face different risk profiles for important quality metrics. Our objective was to assess differences in hospital characteristics where the proportion of patients residing in severely disadvantaged neighborhoods was high versus low. Using Medicare feefor-service claims between January 1, 2014 and November 30, 2014 (5,807,499 hospital stays), we calculated area disadvantage share (ADS), the proportion of each hospital's discharges to severely disadvantaged neighborhoods, for 4528 hospitals.We examined hospital characteristics by a distribution of ADS and by risk-adjusted 30-day readmission. Hospitals in the highest decile cared for a higher proportion of Black patients, were more often located in rural areas, and had a higher patient risk of 30-day readmission compared with all other deciles. Hospitals face unequal burdens of neighborhood disadvantage, a factor distinct from other social determinants such as rurality.

Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) places disproportionate penalties on hospitals serving populations with complex medical and social needs. Without measures to identify the social need intensity of populations cared for by these hospitals, the HRRP cannot account for these risk factors, leading to burdensome penalties that may inadvertently hinder the ability of such hospitals to care for vulnerable populations. The objective of this study is to characterize the social need intensity of US hospital acute care populations. Using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a validated measure that ranks neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage based on income, employment, housing, and education factors, we determined an “Area Deprivation Share” (ADS) for hospitals with 25 or more discharges using 100% of national Medicare claims data from 2013-2014. Hospital ADS is the proportion of qualifying discharges residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI ≥ 80th percentile) out of all qualifying discharges during the study period. Of 4,603 hospitals, median ADS was 17% (Interquartile Range: 6% - 34%). Hospitals in the highest quintile of ADS (39% to 100%), were more frequently located in small towns or isolated rural areas (52.6%, comparted to 24.2% in lower quintiles) and served a higher percentage of Black patients (19.0%, comparted to 9.7% in lower quintiles). ADS is a potential tool to inform future Medicare policy decisions. Additional research will inform how hospitals target care processes to meet the needs of older adults with complex social needs. Further study can also explore overlapping disadvantage domains of socioeconomic status, race, and rurality.