Skip to main content
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • Blog
  • Newsroom
  • Find It Fast
  • Help Center
  • Subscribe
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

PCORI

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Search form

  • About Us
    Close mega-menu

    About Us

    • Our Programs
    • Governance
    • Financials and Reports
    • Procurement Opportunities
    • Our Staff
    • Our Vision & Mission
    • Contact Us

    Fact Sheets: Learn More About PCORI

    Download fact sheets about out work, the research we fund, and our programs and initiatives.

    Find It Fast

    Browse through an alphabetical list of frequently accessed and searched terms for information and resources.

    Subscribe to PCORI Email Alerts

    Sign up for weekly emails to stay current on the latest results of our funded projects, and more.

  • Research & Results
    Close mega-menu

    Research & Results

    • Explore Our Portfolio
    • Research Fundamentals
    • Research Results Highlights
    • Putting Evidence to Work
    • Peer Review
    • Evidence Synthesis
    • About Our Research

    Evidence Updates from PCORI-Funded Studies

    These updates capture highlights of findings from systematic reviews and our funded research studies.

    Journal Articles About Our Funded Research

    Browse through a collection of journal publications that provides insights into PCORI-funded work.

    Explore Our Portfolio of Funded Projects

    Find out about projects based on the health conditions they focus on, the state they are in, and if they have results.

  • Topics
    Close mega-menu

    Topics

    • Addressing Disparities
    • Arthritis
    • Asthma
    • Cancer
    • Cardiovascular Disease
    • Children's Health
    • Community Health Workers
    • COVID-19
    • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment
    • Diabetes
    • Kidney Disease
    • Medicaid
    • Men's Health
    • Mental and Behavioral Health
    • Minority Mental Health
    • Multiple Chronic Conditions
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Obesity
    • Older Adults' Health
    • Pain Care and Opioids
    • Rare Diseases
    • Rural Health
    • Shared Decision Making
    • Telehealth
    • Transitional Care
    • Veterans Health
    • Women's Health

    Featured Topic: Women's Health

    Learn more about the projects we support on conditions that specifically or more often affect women.

  • Engagement
    Close mega-menu

    Engagement

    • The Value of Engagement
    • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
    • Influencing the Culture of Research
    • Engagement Awards
    • Engagement Resources
    • Engage with Us

    Engagement Tools and Resources for Research

    This searchable peer-to-peer repository includes resources that can inform future work in patient-centered outcomes research.

    Explore Engagement in Health Literature

    This tool enables searching for published articles about engagement in health research.

    Research Fundamentals: A New On-Demand Training

    It enables those new to health research or patient-centered research to learn more about the research process.

  • Funding Opportunities
    Close mega-menu

    Funding Opportunities

    • What & Who We Fund
    • What You Need to Know to Apply
    • Applicant Training
    • Merit Review
    • Awardee Resources
    • Help Center

    PCORI Funding Opportunities

    View and learn about the newly opened funding announcements and the upcoming PFAs in 2021.

    Tips for Submitting a Responsive LOI

    Find out what PCORI looks for in a letter of intent (LOI) along with other helpful tips.

    PCORI Awardee Resources

    These resources can help awardees in complying with the terms and conditions of their contract.

  • Meetings & Events
    Close mega-menu

    Meetings & Events

    • Upcoming
    • Past Events

    PCORI 2021 and Beyond

    During this webinar, PCORI leaders shared ways to get involved in PCOR, improvements to our funding opportunities, and more.

    Confronting COVID-19: A Webinar Series

    Learn more about the series and access recordings and summary reports of all six sessions.

    2020 PCORI Annual Meeting

    Watch recordings of all sessions, and view titles and descriptions of the posters presented at the virtual meeting.

You are here

  • Research & Results
  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Using Electronic Health Records at Co...

This project has results

Using Electronic Health Records at Community Health Centers to Help Children Get Health Insurance and Access Health Care

Sign Up for Updates to This Study  

Results Summary and Professional Abstract

Results Summary
Download Summary Español (pdf) Audio Recording (mp3)

Results Summary

What was the research about?

Children who do not have health insurance are less likely to get necessary care, such as regular checkups to identify health problems early and vaccines to prevent common diseases. Low-cost public health insurance (Medicaid) is available to many children whose families can’t get private insurance. But signing up for Medicaid and keeping it can be hard.

The research team wanted to see if using a health insurance enrollment tracking form could help families get and keep health insurance and access health care. They developed a tracking form that community health centers used with electronic health records. The form tracked the help given to families applying for Medicaid. This included providing updates on the status of insurance applications and next steps.

What were the results?

The community health centers that had the tracking form used it with only 15 percent of children who visited the community health centers.

When the tracking form was used in their health records, uninsured children were more likely to get and keep health insurance. They were also more likely to come back to the doctor within six months of when the centers started using the tracking form, get all their checkups in the first 15 months after birth, and get all their recommended shots on time.

Who was in the study?

The research team looked at the health records of 27,251 children who got health care at eight community health centers in Oregon. The children either had no insurance or they had Medicaid. The children were from low-income families of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The four community health centers that had access to the tracking form used it with 2,240 children.

What did the research team do?

The research team looked at electronic health records from the eight community health centers. All eight centers used the same kind of electronic health record. Four centers added the tracking form to their electronic health records. The other four used electronic health records without the tracking form. The research team looked at differences in getting health insurance and health care between children at clinics with the tracking form and children at clinics without the tracking form. In the study, the community health centers that had the tracking forms did not end up using them with all the children. The research team also compared children who did and did not have the tracking forms used at the centers that had the forms.

What were the limits of the study?

All research studies have some limits. In this study, the research team couldn’t say for sure that the tracking form was the reason children got and kept health insurance and got health care. There may have been other reasons for these results. For example, the community health centers that used the form may have been different from the community health centers that did not use the form. Likewise, patients who had the tracking form used in their health records might have been different from patients at the same center who did not have the form. Also, there were changes being made to children’s insurance coverage at the time of this study. The center staff did not use the tracking form with all their patients as the research team had wanted. This may have changed the results of the study. Future studies could look at how to get health center staff to use the form with all patients. This would help the research team understand if the tracking form led to patients getting health insurance and better health care.

How can people use the results?

Community health centers may decide to use electronic health records with tracking forms to help more children get health insurance and health care.

Professional Abstract

Professional Abstract

Objective

To compare the effects of using electronic health records (EHRs) equipped with insurance enrollment tracking forms versus using nonautomated and nonstandardized tracking outside of EHRs on pediatric patients’ health insurance status, healthcare utilization, and receipt of recommended pediatric care in community health centers (CHCs).

Study Design

Design Elements Description
Design Retrospective cohort study
Population Electronic health records of 27,251 pediatric patients receiving care at 8 CHCs in Oregon
Interventions/
Comparators
  • EHRs equipped with a health insurance enrollment tracking form
  • Nonautomated and nonstandardized tracking outside of EHRs
Outcomes

Primary: obtaining and maintaining insurance coverage

Secondary: odds of return visit after uninsured visit, odds of being uninsured at return visit, rate of receiving recommended pediatric care

Timeframe 18-month follow-up for primary outcomes

The research team developed a health insurance enrollment tracking form (the “tracking form”) to be used with EHRs to help families obtain and maintain coverage. The tracking form enabled CHC staff to assist patients with health insurance enrollment. CHC staff used the form to track the status of patients’ insurance applications. The research team conducted an 18-month retrospective cohort study to evaluate the form’s use in intervention clinics.

The study included eight CHCs that used the same EHR system. During the study period, four CHCs used the tracking form to monitor patients’ insurance enrollment progress. Four control CHCs did not use the form. Researchers matched control CHCs to intervention CHCs based on the ratio of children to adults, the percentage of patients of Hispanic ethnicity, and the length of EHR experience. All CHCs in the study served patients from low-income and ethnically diverse backgrounds. They also served children who were either uninsured or on Medicaid.

The research team identified three cohorts of children who had one or more visits at a participating CHC during the study period:

  1. Intervention patients: Children who visited intervention CHCs and for whom staff used the tracking form (n=2,240).
  2. Within-clinic comparison patients: Children who visited intervention CHCs and for whom staff did not use the tracking form (n=12,784).
  3. Control-clinic patients: Children who visited a control CHC where the tracking form was not implemented (n=12,227).

The research team reviewed EHR and Medicaid data to see if children for whom the tracking form was used were more or less likely to have insurance coverage at follow-up visits; return for a clinic visit in the first six months of the study; and receive recommended pediatric care.

Results

Use of the tracking form. Intervention CHCs only used the tracking form with 15 percent of all pediatric patients.

Insurance coverage. At the intervention CHCs, intervention patients had higher rates of continuous insurance coverage than within-clinic comparison patients. Fewer intervention patients had Medicaid coverage for less than half of the post-intervention period compared with the within-clinic comparison patients and control-clinic patients.

Intervention patients who were uninsured were more likely to gain Medicaid coverage than uninsured within-clinic comparison patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.76; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.60-1.93) or control-clinic patients (aOR=2.28; 95% CI 1.91-2.72). In addition, insured intervention patients were less likely to lose coverage than insured within-clinic comparison patients (aOR=0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.94) or control-clinic patients (aOR=0.55; 95% CI 0.45-0.67).

Among patients who visited a CHC while uninsured and who returned for a subsequent visit, intervention patients were less likely to be uninsured than within-clinic comparison patients (aOR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.88); but there was no difference between intervention and control-clinic patients.

Healthcare utilization. Intervention patients were more likely to return for at least one follow-up CHC visit compared to the within-clinic comparison patients (aOR=1.83, 95% CI 1.39-2.40); however, there was no difference between intervention and control-clinic patients.

Receiving recommended pediatric care. Intervention patients were more likely to receive recommended well-child visits and be up to date on immunizations than within-clinic comparison and control-clinic patients. More intervention patients (63%) received the recommended pediatric care in the first 15 months of life than within-clinic control patients (39%, p <0.001) and control-clinic patients (53%, p <0.002)). Intervention patients were significantly more likely to be up to date on immunizations than both comparison groups (p <0.05).

Limitations

This study captured correlations between the EHR tracking form and the outcomes described. It could not establish causality for several reasons. Because this was not a randomized study, differences between the clinics and the patient populations could be responsible for the results. The follow-up period may have been too short to adequately review form uptake and impact. Finally, the form was used with only 15 percent of eligible patients at the intervention CHCs. The research team attributed this to concurrent initiatives that also required CHC staff to submit different tracking data on insurance enrollment support and payment tracking, which may have overburdened staff. Likewise, Medicaid coverage end dates that had been built into the EHR system were no longer accurate after Oregon extended coverage end dates for those reapplying for Medicaid in response to the surge of applications and increased processing times resulting from Medicaid expansion.

Conclusions and Relevance

EHRs equipped with health insurance enrollment tracking forms may help increase insurance coverage, decrease the chance of losing coverage at the time of reenrollment, and increase the use of recommended care among pediatric patients in CHCs. However, drawing conclusions about causal relationships between the tracking form and the study outcomes would require CHC staff to use the tracking form with more patients.

Future Research Needs

Future research could continue to examine how EHR-based insurance enrollment tracking forms help patients obtain and maintain insurance coverage.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Journal Articles

Related Articles

BMC Health Services Research

Electronic health record tools to assist with children's insurance coverage: a mixed methods study

Patient Experience Journal

Maintaining public health insurance benefits: How primary care clinics help keep low-income patients insured

The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management

Utilization of Community Health Centers in Medicaid Expansion and Nonexpansion States, 2013-2014

Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics

Designing health information technology tools to prevent gaps in public health insurance

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Lessons Learned from Developing a Patient Engagement Panel: An OCHIN Report

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Innovative Methods for Parents And Clinics to Create Tools for Kids' Care (IMPACCT Kids' Care) Study Protocol

Academic Pediatrics

Trends in Type of Health Insurance Coverage for US Children and Their Parents, 1998-2011

Maternal and Child Health Journal

The Association Between Medicaid Coverage for Children and Parents Persists: 2002-2010

EGEMS

Improve Synergy Between Health Information Exchange and Electronic Health Records to Increase Rates of Continuously Insured Patients

Maternal and Child Health Journal

Predictors of children's health insurance coverage discontinuity in 1998 versus 2009: parental coverage continuity plays a major role

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Supporting health insurance expansion: do electronic health records have valid insurance verification and enrollment data?

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

IMPACCT Kids' Care: a real-world example of stakeholder involvement in comparative effectiveness research.

Annals of Family Medicine

An early look at rates of uninsured safety net clinic visits after the Affordable Care Act

Maternal and Child Health Journal

Linkage methods for connecting children with parents in electronic health record and state public health insurance data

Annals of Family Medicine

Health information technology: an untapped resource to help keep patients insured

The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management

Use of qualitative methods and user-centered design to develop customized health information technology tools within federally qualified health centers to keep children insured

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to Identify Communities in Need of Health Insurance Outreach: An OCHIN Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) Report

Pediatrics

Using electronic health records to conduct children's health insurance surveillance

Annals of Family Medicine

Being uninsured is bad for your health: can medical homes play a role in treating the uninsurance ailment?

More on this Project  

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

The awardee made the following revisions in response to peer review:

  • The awardee presented more detail to explain that intervention and comparison group participants were equivalent at the start of the study, in that the awardee recruited participants using the target clinics, regardless of whether the patients were already seeking help with insurance enrollment. 
  • The awardee confirmed that all participants in the study had gone through at least one reenrollment period for Medicaid benefits. Therefore, all participants had an opportunity to use the study’s intervention tool. In addition, the awardee confirmed that the intervention and control clinics had workflows already in place to flag any patients who were at risk of losing insurance coverage. As a result, the awardee had an equal likelihood of identifying patients in either the intervention or comparison group who lacked insurance, or who were at risk of losing insurance.
  • The awardee edited the methods and intervention section to explain that the Tracking and Documentation Form tool  ties to enrollment assistance actions taken for individual patients, if clinic staff entered the need for enrollment assistance in the form. The investigators were able to link patients’ use of the tool to insurance enrollment status and dates only retrospectively.
  • The awardee revised the report to make study conclusions more tentative, responding to reviewers’ note that low use of the tool in intervention clinics reflected inherent difficulties in - intervention studies based on electronic health records and clinic workflows.

Study Protocol

View this project's study protocol.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

View the COI disclosure form.

Project Details

Principal Investigator
Jennifer E. DeVoe, MD, DPhil
Project Status
Completed; PCORI Public and Professional Abstracts, and Final Research Report Posted
Project Title
Innovative Methods for Parents and Clinics to Create Tools (IMPACCT) for Kids Care
Board Approval Date
December 2012
Project End Date
February 2017
Organization
Oregon Community Health Information Network
Year Awarded
2012
State
Oregon
Year Completed
2017
Project Type
Research Project
Health Conditions  
Other or Non-Disease Specific
Intervention Strategies
Other Health Services Interventions
Technology Interventions
Populations
Children -- 18 and under
Low Income
Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Rural
Urban
Funding Announcement
Improving Healthcare Systems
Project Budget
$1,802,033
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
10.25302/6.2018.CER.308
Study Registration Information
HSRP20142235
NCT02298361
Page Last Updated: 
June 9, 2020

About Us

  • Our Programs
  • Governance
  • Financials and Reports
  • Procurement Opportunities
  • Our Staff
  • Our Vision & Mission
  • Contact Us

Research & Results

  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Research Fundamentals
  • Research Results Highlights
  • Putting Evidence to Work
  • Peer Review
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • About Our Research

Engagement

  • The Value of Engagement
  • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
  • Influencing the Culture of Research
  • Engagement Awards
  • Engagement Resources
  • Engage with Us

Funding Opportunities

  • What & Who We Fund
  • What You Need to Know to Apply
  • Applicant Training
  • Merit Review
  • Awardee Resources
  • Help Center

Meetings & Events

March 8
Engagement Awards 2021 Special Cycle -- Applicant Office Hours (One)
March 15
Priorities on the Health Horizon: Informing PCORI's Strategic Plan (Webinar)
March 15
PCORI Workshop on Methodologic Challenges in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research

PCORI

Footer contact address

Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute

1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 827-7700 | Fax: (202) 355-9558
[email protected]

Subscribe to Newsletter

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Vimeo

© 2011-2021 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademark Usage Guidelines | Credits | Help Center