Introduction: This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings. Methods: As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes. Results: Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks.

Frequent use of emergency department (ED) services is often perceived to be a potentially preventable misuse of resources. The underlying assumption is that similar and more appropriate care can be delivered outside of EDs at a lower cost. To reduce costs and incentivize more appropriate use of services, there have been efforts to design interventions to transition health care utilization of frequent users from EDs to other settings such as outpatient clinics. Many of these efforts have succeeded in smaller trials, but wider use remains elusive for varying reasons. There are also some fundamental problems with the assumption that all or even the majority of frequent ED use is misuse and invoking reasons for that excessive use. These tenuous assumptions become evident when frequent users as a group are compared to less frequent users. Specifically, frequent users tend to have high levels of frequent ED use, have a higher severity of illness, be older, have fewer personal resources, be chronically ill, present for pain-related complaints, and have government insurance (Medicare or Medicaid). Because of the unique characteristics of the population of frequent users, we propose a research agenda that aims to increase the understanding of frequent ED use, by: 1) creating an accepted categorization system for frequent users, 2) predicting which patients are at risk for becoming or remaining frequent users, 3) implementing both ED-and non-ED-based interventions, and 4) conducting qualitative studies of frequent ED users to explore reasons and identify factors that are subject to intervention and explore specific differences among populations by condition, such as mental illness and heart failure.

Introduction: Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February-March 2019. Results: Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was

ITH INCREASING MEDIcal care costs, policymakers have turned to emergency department (ED) utilization as a potential source for cost savings. Although the assumptions driving this policy approach are unproven, 1 recent attempts to reduce ED use have occurred in Medicaid programs. [2][3][4][5][6] If implemented for patients in Medicaid programs, it is likely that such practices may result in similar policies by other payers, potentially affecting access to ED care for other segments of the population.One approach aimed at reducing ED use has been to deny or limit payment if the patient's diagnosis on discharge from the ED appears to reflect a "nonemergency" condition. 3,7,8 Legislatures or regulators in Tennessee, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Illinois have considered or enacted legislation or regulations that would limit payment for nonemergency ED visits by Medicaid enrollees, based on discharge diagnosis. Other states, including Arizona, Oregon, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, and New Mexico, have recently implemented or considered implementing some level of copayment requirement for nonemer-For editorial comment see p 1173.

No abstract