Innovations in Payer–Community Partnerships: The EmblemHealth Neighborhood Care Program

Abstract

Comprehensive and innovative strategies are needed to address and manage chronic diseases and conditions and to reduce health disparities. EmblemHealth Neighborhood Care (EHNC) sites provide community-based linkages across payers, health providers, and delivery systems and underserved communities using culturally sensitive methods tailored to meet the needs of the community. This article describes this novel initiative and early indicators of its feasibility. Three EHNC sites were established in New York City: Harlem, Cambria Heights, and Chinatown. Each site provides core health and customer services to members and the community. In addition, sites provide tailored services to meet the unique needs of each community. Preliminary data suggest that program and community members are utilizing the sites and returning for follow-up visits. Sites also demonstrate success in cross referral between EHNC teams. The EHNC program is both feasible from the payer's perspective and acceptable to diverse patient populations and settings.

Screening and Interventions for Social Risk Factors

“…Five studies enrolled children and adults (n = 2633), 3 studies enrolled participants of all ages (n = 1280), and 1 study enrolled children/adolescents and older adults (n not reported). Fifty-four studies (n = 120 245) recruited a general, nontargeted patient population; all other studies (n = 5 858 351) targeted patients with particular demographic, medical, or social risk characteristics. Participants were most frequently selected based on specific social risk(s) (eg, homeless, low income) (22 studies, n = 25837) …”

“…Fifty-two studies provided data on patient- or clinician-reported satisfaction or challenges after implementation of social risk screening or interventions (eTable 4 in the Supplement).…”

“…Thirty-one articles included positive patient reports of satisfaction with and acceptability of screening and interventions, often referring to improvements in the patient-clinician relationship and high comfort levels. Eleven articles reported on challenges or unintended consequences of screening or intervention for patients, including discomfort (eg, shame about social risks) and confidentiality issues (eg, fear of legal repercussions such as being reported for child maltreatment due to food insecurity).…”

“…Fifty-two studies 13,15,22,25,26,[32][33][34]38,39,44,48,56,68,71,74,76,78,84,98,99,101,107,112,115,116,119,121,123,124,[126][127][128]132,136,[150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166] provided data on patient-or clinician-reported satisfaction or challenges after imple-mentation of social risk screening or interventions (eTable 4 in the Supplement).…”