Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Health Educ Behav. 2015 Apr 6;43(1):25–34. doi: 10.1177/1090198115579415

Personalized Strategies to Activate and Empower Patients in Health Care and Reduce Health Disparities

Jie Chen 1, C Daniel Mullins 2, Priscilla Novak 3, Stephen B Thomas 4
PMCID: PMC4681678  NIHMSID: NIHMS738212  PMID: 25845376

Abstract

Designing culturally-sensitive personalized interventions is essential to sustain patients’ involvement in their treatment, and encourage patients to take an active role in their own health and health care. We consider patient activation and empowerment as a cyclical process defined through patient accumulation of knowledge, confidence, and self-determination for their own health and health care. We propose a patient-centered, multi-level activation and empowerment framework (individual-, health care professional-, community-, and health care delivery system-level) to inform the development of culturally informed personalized patient activation and empowerment (P-PAE) interventions to improve population health, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities. We discuss relevant Affordable Care Act payment and delivery policy reforms, and how they impact patient activation and empowerment. Such policies include Accountable Care Organizations and Value Based Purchasing, Patient Centered Medical Homes, and the Community Health Benefit. Challenges and possible solutions to implementing the P-PAE are discussed. Comprehensive and longitudinal data sets with consistent P-PAE measures are needed to conduct comparative effectiveness analyses to evaluate the optimal P-PAE model. We believe the P-PAE model is timely and sustainable, and will be critical to engaging patients in their treatment, developing patients’ abilities to manage their health, helping patients to express concerns and preferences regarding treatment, empowering patients to ask questions about treatment options, and building up strategic patient-provider partnerships through shared decision making.

Introduction

Patient engagement in health care has been considered as a “blockbuster drug of the century” (Kish, 2012), with the potential to achieve the “triple aim” of improved health outcomes, better patient care, and lower costs (Berwick, Nolan, & Whittington, 2008). Engaging patients to actively participate in their care has become a priority for policy makers, with the goal of improving health care delivery system quality and efficacy (Hibbard, Mahoney, Stock, & Tusler, 2007; Hibbard & Cunningham, 2008; Johnson, 2011; Fitzsimons & Fuller, 2002). There are provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that encourage providers (including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) to engage patients as proactive and empowered participants in maintaining their good health and effectively managing chronic disease, by using new care delivery models such as the patient-centered medical home, Accountable Care Organizations, and the establishing best practices through shared-decision making (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Sections 3021, 3022, and 3506; 2010).

Research suggests that patient engagement levels differ by race and ethnicity (Hibbard et al., 2008; Hibbard, Greene, & Overton, 2013), with African Americans and Latinos demonstrating lower engagement levels compared to Whites (Cunningham, Hibbard, & Gibbons, 2011). Although patient engagement models have been presented by Hibbard (2004), Parchman (2010), and Becker (2008), we suggest that evidence of using patient activation models to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities is still lacking (Koh, Brach, Harris, & Parchman, 2013). Less engagement in wellness and prevention may be a factor in the greater observed severity and disease burden among minorities (Institute of Medicine, 2002). Evidence suggests that culturally tailored community-based patient education programs (Alegría et al., 20088; Alegría, Sribney, Perez, Laderman, & Keefe, 2009; Hibbard & Greene, 2003), and programs targeted to reduce language barriers can effectively engage minorities in their own care, and eventually improve population health of underserved minorities (Flores, 2006). Thus, it is critical for clinicians and policy makers to have a comprehensive understanding of how to enhance patient engagement, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities, to improve health and reduce health disparities (Alegria et al, 2014).

In this study, we consider patient activation and empowerment as a cyclical process defined through patient accumulation of knowledge, confidence, and self-determination for their own health and health care. We propose a patient-centered, multi-level activation and empowerment framework (individual-, health care provider-, community-, and health care delivery system-level) to inform the development of culturally designed Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment (P-PAE) interventions to improve population health, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities.

The Concept of “Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment”

Patient activation and empowerment

Patient activation and patient empowerment are two interdependent concepts (Hibbard, Mahoney, Stockard, & Tusler, 2007; Hibbard & Cunningham 2008a; Alegría et al., 2008; Alegría, Scribney, Perez, Laderman, & Keefe, 2009; Cortes, Mulvaney-Day, Fortuna, Reinfeld, & Alegría, 2009). Patient activation refers to patients’ knowledge, skill, and confidence to manage their health and health care (Hibbard & Greene, 2003). Patient empowerment involves patients’ self-efficacy and capacity to make informed decisions about their health care (Aujoulat, Marcolongo, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008). Unlike patient activation, patient empowerment is a more proactive concept, which reflects patients’ self-determination to make autonomous decisions and facilitate self-promoted healthy behaviors (Aujoulat, Marcolongo, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008).

Adapted from this literature, we use patient activation and empowerment improvement to denote a life cycle process that increases patients’ knowledge, confidence, and self-determination of their own health and health care. Patients gain knowledge of their health conditions, treatment plans, or health care access through providers, communities, or policy interventions. Research suggests that after gaining knowledge, patients are more likely to develop confidence (Ludman et al., 2013). With confidence, patients can be motivated and gain self-determination abilities, such as the ability to communicate with their providers, and express their health concerns and preferences (Chen, Mortensen, & Bloodworth, 2014). Self-determination empowers patients to seek more health information, acquire more knowledge of their health from providers or other sources, and become more confident (Aujoulat, d’Hoore, & Deccache, 2007; Aujoulat, Marcocolongi, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008). Hence, we expect that with the accumulated knowledge, confidence, and self-determination, patients may take more responsibility for their health, and be more involved in treatment. The progression of this dynamic progress depends on various factors, such as patients’ races and ethnicities, cultural background, and community characteristics (Chen et al., 2014; Ludwig et al., 2012; Gaskin, Dinwiddle, Chan, & McCleary, 2012a, 2012b).

Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment (P-PAE)

Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment (P-PAE) strategies, are strategies specifically designed based on the characteristics of individuals, and are necessary to engage and sustain patients from diverse cultural backgrounds in health care (Koh, Brach, Harris, & Parchman, 2013; Jerant, Sohler, Fiscella, B. Franks, & P. Franks, 2011). Not every intervention to improve patient activation and empowerment works equally well for all racial and ethnic minorities (Shaw & Krause, 2001; Skolasky, Mackenzie, Wegener, & Riley, 2008; Sandman, Granger, Ekman, & Munthe, 2012).

Compared to Whites, racial and ethnic minorities play relatively passive roles in health care and are less willing to participate in the health care decision-making (Finfgeld, 2004; Sandman, Granger, Ekman, & Munthe, 2012; Aujoulat, d’Hoore, & Deccache, 2007; Aujoulat, Marcocolongi, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008). Variables that mediate patient activation and empowerment, such as self-efficacy and patient-provider relationship, are usually less favorable among minorities than among others (Aujoulat, d’Hoore, & Deccache, 2007; Aujoulat, Marcocolongi, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008). Racial and ethnic minorities are also more likely to experience stress caused by job loss, poverty, limited health care access, or single parenthood (Hibbard et al., 2008; Macartney, Bishaw, & Fontenot, 2013). Latinos and African Americans report worse patient-provider relationships and communication, and are less likely to initiate healthy behaviors or adhere to treatment plans (Wang et al., 2003). Studies also show that minority patients are less likely to have opportunities to ask questions during provider visits, receive less information on their treatments, and are less likely to be consulted their preferences in treatment decisions (Link & Phelan, 1995). Compared to Whites, African Americans have significantly smaller “social networks” (Shaw & Krause, 2001). These findings suggest that tailored policies focusing on improving patient-provider relationship, self-efficacy, and social support, may be even more necessary among minorities compared to Whites.

Vulnerable populations with low levels of activation and empowerment may gain more health benefits from improved activation and empowerment, as Hibbard et al. (2013) noted that “patients who start at the lowest activations tend to increase the most.” Improving patient activation and empowerment and through implementation of P-PAE has the potential to improve minorities’ health and improve health disparities, one of the major goals of Healthy People 2020 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013).

The Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment (P-PAE) Model

P-PAE is a multi-dimensional concept, involving patients, their providers, their communities, and the overall health care delivery system, and reflecting patient, provider, and social and physical environments. In this present study, we propose a patient-centered multi-level activation and empowerment framework to inform the design of P-PAE strategies (Figure 1). Our model is adapted from the existing literature on the theory of patient-centered outcomes research (PCORI, 2013a; Selby, Beal, & Frank, 2012), the social behavior model (Janz & Becker, 1984), the chronic care model (Wagner, Davis, Schaefer, Von Korff, & Austin, 1999; Barr et al., 2003; Brownson et al., 2007), shared decision-making framework (Sandman, Granger, Ekman, & Munthe, 2012; Légaré & Witteman, 2013; Légaré et al., 2011), health literate care model (Koh, Brach, Harris, & Parchman, 2013), and patient activation and empowerment studies (Hibbard et al., 2008; Aujoulat, Marcolongo, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008; Anderson & Funnell, 2010; Feste & Anderson, 1995; Hibbard, Mahoney, Stockard, & Tusler, 2005; Holmström & Röing, 2010; Carman et al., 2013). Our proposed framework puts patients in the center of the delivery system and uses patient-centered outcomes research theory to explain how patient activation and empowerment can be personalized. This model provides a conceptual and analytical framework to understand the interaction and interrelationship between patients, health care providers, communities and health care delivery system level factors. Patient centered outcomes research is needed to test optimal P-PAE strategies with different racial and ethnic sub-groups. We elaborate on each component of the P-PAE model below.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Patient-Centered Multi-Level Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment Framework

Note: Our proposed patient-centered multi-level activation and empowerment framework is adapted from the existing literature, including patient-centered outcomes research (PCORI, 2013a; Selby, Beal, & Frank, 2012), the social behavior model (Janz & Becker, 1984), the chronic care model (Wagner, Davis, Schaefer, Von Korff, & Austin, 1999; Barr et al., 2003; Brownson et al., 2007), shared decision-making framework (Sandman, Granger, Ekman, & Munthe, 2012; Légaré & Witteman, 2013; Légaré et al., 2011), health literate care model (Koh, Brach, Harris, & Parchman, 2013), and patient activation and empowerment literature (Hibbard et al., 2008; Aujoulat, Marcolongo, Bonadiman, & Deccache, 2008; Anderson & Funnell, 2010; Feste & Anderson, 1995; Hibbard, Mahoney, Stockard, & Tusler, 2005; Holmström & Röing, 2010; Carman et al., 2013).

Patient-Centered Framework

Patients are in the center of our proposed framework. Outcomes of treatment can only be optimized if the patients actively participate in treatment and take responsibility for their own health. Health care providers, community environment, and the health care delivery system can individually or simultaneously influence patients’ knowledge, confidence, or self-determination, to improve patient activation and empowerment. Improved patient activation and empowerment, in return, may benefit the patient-provider relationship, and increase the efficiency of health care delivery systems. As indicated in Figure 1, P-PAE requires synergy among patients, providers, communities and delivery systems.

Health Care Providers

Our definition of providers includes physicians, nurses (Sofaer & Schumann, 2013), physician assistants, social workers, and pharmacists (Dabbs, Song, Geest, & Davidson, 2013). The patient-provider relationship has been well studied in the literature (Finfgeld, 2004; Sandman, Granger, Ekman, & Munthe, 2012; Fraenkel & McGraw, 2007; Nygardh, Malm, Wikby, & Ahlström, 2012; Quill & Brody, 1996; Guerrero, Chen, Inkelas, Rodriguez, & Ortega, 2010; Vargas-Bustamante & Chen, 2011; Brownson et al., 2007). Shared decision-making between providers and patients is generally considered an effective way to improve health care quality and patient satisfaction (Fraenkel & McGraw, 2007; Nygardh, Malm, Wikby, & Ahlström, 2012; Quill & Brody, 1996). Recent studies show patient-provider communication, such as the practice of interpersonal exchange, and treatment goal setting can significantly improve patient engagement (Flores, 2006; Hearld & Alexander, 2012). Provider’s active role engaging patients can be more helpful for racial and ethnic minorities, since research suggests they encountered worse physician-patient relationships, and were less active compared to Whites (Chen, Mortensen, & Bloodworth, 2014). Racial and language concordance have the potential to improve P-PAE through shared cultural background between providers and patients (Vargas-Bustamante & Chen, 2011).

Communities

Recent research suggests that the social environment (“refers to relations among people living in a particular area and encompasses concepts such as connectedness to and similarity with neighbors and social disorder”) has a significant impact on the choices individuals make each day (Williams et al., 2012; Gaskin, Dinwiddle, Chan, & McCleary, 2012a, 2012b). Community health care resources (e.g. hospitals, clinical centers) and population characteristics, and the built environment are significantly associated with health care access and utilization (Gaskin, Dinwiddle, Chan, & McCleary, 2012a, 2012b; Davidson, Andersen, Wyn, & Brown, 2004; Ludwig et al., 2012; Benjamins, Kirby, & Bond Huie, 2004), health outcomes (White, Haas, & Williams, 2012; Williams et al., 2012; Freedman, Grafova, & Rogowski, 2011; Freedman, Grafova, Schoeni, & Rogowski, 2008), and health disparities (White, Haas, & Williams, 2012; Williams et al., 2012). Hibbard (2009) noted the importance of improving patient activation at the community level. Chen, Mortensen, & Bloodworth (2014) presented a conceptual framework for the association of contextual factors, including medical environment, neighborhood characteristics and patient activation, to empirically show that patient activation varies by neighborhood poverty levels and number of immigrant residents. Community health care resources and population characteristics, such as residential segregation, are significantly associated with health disparities (Chen, Mortensen, & Bloodworth, 2014; Gaskin, Dinwiddle, Chan, & McCleary, 2012a, 2012b; Williams et al., 2012). More evidence is needed to determine how the community can improve patient activation and empowerment among diverse populations to reduce disparities.

Delivery System Policy

Having health care access and insurance can significantly improve health care quality and reduce racial and ethnic disparities (Institute of Medicine, 2002; Chen & Vargas-Bustamante, 2011; Vargas-Bustamante & Chen, 2012). We expect that health care access and insurance status cancan influence racial and ethnic disparities in patient activation and empowerment as well. The literature suggests that Latinos’ lower activation and empowerment may reflect their limited health care access (Cunningham, Hibbard, & Gibbons, 2011), and type of health insurance (Hibbard et al., 2008). Health insurance cost-sharing can influence patients’ willingness to seek treatment and adhere to provider-suggested plan-of-care (Carman et al., 2013; Korda & Eldridge, 2012). The structure of the health care delivery system, including how, where, and when care is made available, policies regulating reimbursement for different types of care (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2013a, 2013b), and whether patient preferences for care are valued (James, 2013), have the potential to impact P-PAE.

Prompting P-PAE under the Affordable Care Act

The U.S. faces major barriers to implement P-PAE model successfully. These barriers include a fragmented health care delivery system (Enthoven, 2009), lack of continuity of care (Warth, 2011), and insufficient payment incentives for providers to engage patients in treatment. Under the ACA, patient activation and empowerment has been recognized as an “integral component of quality” (James, 2013). These ACA provisions include increased access to health insurance through exchanges and Medicaid expansion,, the creation of Accountable Care Organizations, establishment of Value Based Purchasing, development of Patient Centered Medical Homes, and a requirement that non-profit hospitals deliver a community health benefit.

Health Insurance Exchanges

Under the ACA, 35 million Americans were projected to gain insurance (Congress, 2010) and as of late February 2015, well over 9 million previously uninsured individuals enrolled in coverage through Federally facilitated coverage expansion options (White House, 2015). While Medicaid will facilitate the provision of insurance to low income individuals in states that have chosen to opt-in, the Exchanges serve as marketplaces where insurance plans can be purchased and provide the majority of insurance coverage. Having health insurance can directly influence patient activation and empowerment, particularly for those who are currently uninsured (Cunningham, Hibbard, & Gibbons, 2011). Knowing you have insurance coverage, or being confident through gaining insurance, for instance, can be ways to improve patient activation and empowerment. Supports from patient navigators and in-person programs may be necessary to help newly insured patients select and understand the insurance coverage (Torrey, 2013; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2013c). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have provided financial support to patient navigation programs that serve in the Federally-facilitated and State Partnership Marketplaces (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2013c).

Accountable Care Organizations and Value Based Purchasing

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2013a, 2013b) are accountable for overall health care treatment, cost, as well as health care quality. Value Based Purchasing (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2014) pays hospitals for achieving certain quality and care-coordinating goals. Both provisions advocate integrated health care, which requires patients to be activated, empowered, and responsible in their own health, and promotes interactions between patients, providers, and health systems. Under these provisions, patients and providers are encouraged to share decision-making. Shared decision making allows care decisions to be tailored to reflect patients’ true preferences (James, 2013). With ACOs, coordinated care among physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals is required to promote the health of Medicare patients, especially those with chronic diseases, to get “the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical error” (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2013a, 2013b). The goal of the ACOs is to improve efficiency. Improving personalized patient activation and empowerment is fundamental to achieve this goal (Cunningham, Hibbard, & Gibbons, 2011; Hibbard & Greene, 2003; Alegría, Scribney, Perez, Laderman, & Keefe, 2009; Finfgeld, 2004; Sandman, Granger, Ekman, & Munthe, 2012; Hearld & Alexander, 2012). The ACA also promotes value-based payment reform to provide incentive payments to reward quality improvement and achievement, through Medicaid & Medicare payment adjustments, incentive payments, bundled payments, and shared savings programs (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2014). Payment reforms incentivize a high level of patient activation and sustained participation in health care.

Patient Centered Medical Homes

Patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) are an alternative health care delivery model that requires care coordination among patients and providers (Cassidy, 2010). Providers have been offered aids and financial support to create patient centered medical homes. However, because the operation of a PCMH necessitates the use of electronic health records and practice management tools, the transition can often be quite challenging. A recent study (Edwards, Bitton, Hong, & Landon, 2014) suggests that payment incentives for providers and patients have been increased to promote patient centered medical home initiatives in recent years. Because PCMHs focus on having most of the patient’s needs delivered through one service entity, providers have the opportunity to enhance P-PAE through motivational interviewing and repeated interactions with the same panel of patients (Chen, Mortensen, & Bloodworth, 2014).

Community Health Benefit

In addition to the above provisions that can directly influence P-PAE, other provisions of the ACA can promote patient activation and empowerment indirectly. Such programs include the establishment of community health teams (section 3502) (Millenson & Macri, 2012), the requirement of price and quality transparency (Yegian, Dardess, Shannon, & Carman, 2013), provision of decision-aids to address diverse levels of health literacy (Koh, Brach, Harris, & Parchman, 2013), and requirements that hospitals that do not pay taxes demonstrate a “community benefit” through the provision of charity care and establishment of prevention and wellness programs (Corrigan, Fisher, & Heiser, 2015). Patients can gain more support from the community, have the opportunity to know the price and quality of health care through public reporting, and receive individually designed education programs under these provisions of the ACA.

Challenges and possible solutions to implement the P-PAE model

Although financial incentives have been distributed under the ACA, and ongoing policies have been implemented to encourage and sustain effort from different stakeholders, there still remains a gap in our knowledge about how to best accomplish the integration of different stakeholders to promote patient activation and empowerment. We believe successful implementation of the P-PAE model requires involvement of multiple stakeholders (e.g. diversified health care workforce) and provision of comprehensive services (e.g. housing, physical environment). For example, effective P-PAE has to be accompanied by health care providers’ collaborative support. In other words, unless providers also make necessary changes, efforts by patients will be undermined (Légaré & Witteman, 2013).

The committed partnerships between stakeholders are the key of the P-PAE model (Edwards, Bitton, Hong, & Landon, 2014; Corrigan, Fisher, & Heiser, 2015). Public health leadership will be needed to encourage and sustain the partnerships among various stakeholders. Such leadership should be able to establish long-term relationships with community residents, assume more responsibilities for underserved populations, and commit to promote population health. Local health departments, for example, have the potential to lead the implementation of P-PAE model, since within their charge to perform the essential public health services they should: “inform, educate, and empower people about health issues, develop policies and plans that support individual and community health efforts, enforce laws and regulations that protect health and ensure safety, link people with needed personal health services and ensure the provision of health care otherwise unavailable.” (Handler, Issel, & Turnock, 2001) Emerging literature shows local health departments’ success in controlling diseases and reducing mortality (Brown, Martinez-Gutierrez, & Navab, 2014; Mays & Smith, 2011, Grembowski, Bekemeier, Conrad, & Kreuter, 2010, Rodriguez, Chen, Edusei, Suh, & Bekemeier, 2012). In addition to local health departments, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2015) also have the mission to provide comprehensive health care services for vulnerable populations. More research will be needed to further explore the roles of local health departments and FQHCs in improving P-PAE.

Empirical comparative effectiveness tests focusing on identifying an optimal P-PAE model require data sets with multi-level (individual-, health care professionals-, community-, and health care delivery system-levels) variables. Comprehensive and longitudinal data sets are needed. Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Patient Activation Supplement File provides sixteen questionnaires on patient activation among Medicare beneficiaries (Parker, Regan, & Petroski, 2014). Health Tracking Household Survey provides thirteen questionnaires on patient activation for all the adults in the U.S. However, these patient activation measures are not included in its recent survey. With the help of electronic health records, comprehensive and longitudinal data sets, such as MORE2 Registry® Research Edition Data Dictionary, that tracks individuals’ health records are emerging. But most of these data sets do not have information on patient activation and empowerment. In addition, it is critical to have consistent measures of patient activation and empowerment across different surveys to conduct comparative effectiveness analysis.

In addition, qualitative studies are needed to identify in-depth barriers and challenges, acknowledge factors associated with activations that have been omitted in quantitative data sets, and help to estimate the causal effects on activation and empowerment (Mullins, Abdulhalim, & Lavallee, 2012). Through quantitative and qualitative analyses, effective P- PAE interventions, especially for hard-to-reach populations, can be explored comprehensively.

Healthcare Transformation through the P-PAE Model

Our proposed framework is relevant for policy makers to improve the efficiency and equity of the health care delivery system in the U.S. Activating and empowering patients in health and health care is a priority to improve the efficiency and quality of the health care delivery system under the ACA. Rearrangement of financial incentives provides the momentum to implement patient centered care to promote P-PAE. If P-PAE strategies are successfully implemented, we can expect to see decreased health care costs, improved efficiency and quality, reduced health disparities, and improved population health. Patients would directly benefit from the health gains of being activated and empowered. Providers and delivery systems should adopt P-PAE strategies to cultivate patients’ confidence, improve patients’ activation, and encourage patients to express health concerns and treatment preferences. Providers participating in ACOs, PCMHs and other Value Based initiatives would also financially benefit from the health gains that result from improved patient activation and empowerment. Community organizations, such as non-profit health entities and local health departments, can also integrate P-PAE strategies to empower those they serve. Greater availability of existing health care data sets would facilitate evaluation of P-PAE.

Table 1.

Key ACA Provisions Related to Personalized Patient Activation and Empowerment (P-PAE) Framework

Programs/Provisions Narrative Direct Relation to the P-PAE Model
Health Insurance Exchanges

(Congress, 2010; White House, 2015)

  • Insurance coverage

  • Health Care System: access and insurance

  • Patient: knowledge of exchange

  • HCP: coordinate under patients’ insurance

  • Community: Patient navigators help with enrollment
Accountable Care Organizations

(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2013a, 2013b)

  • Coordination among doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers

  • Patient-provider shared decision-making

  • Decision-aids programs and health information technology

  • Health Care System: policy requirement

  • Patient: all aspects of P-PAE

  • HCP: promote patients’ engagement and encourage P-PAE

  • Community: encourage patient engagement, assist to design culturally reflected community interventions
Patient-Centered Medical Homes

(Cassidy, 2010)

  • Patient-centeredness

  • Coordination among patients and primary care providers

  • Patient-centered framework: coordination and collaboration

  • Health Care System: policy requirement

  • Patient: P-PAE

  • HCP: encourage patient engagement by considering patients’ cultural backgrounds
Innovative Value-Based Payment System

(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2014)

  • Provide incentive payments to reward quality improvement and achievement

  • Health Care System: policy requirement and payment incentive

  • HCP: encourage P-PAE
Community

(Millenson & Macri, 2012)

  • Community health team

  • Health Care System: policy requirement

  • Patient: P-PAE

  • Community: community involvement
Transparency

(Yegian, Dardess, Shannon, & Carman, 2013)

  • Public reporting

  • Patient: knowledge to make decisions
Open in a new tab

Notes: 1. HCP: Health Care Providers (e.g. physicians, nurses, and pharmacists); 2. Programs/Provisions can be overlapped. For example, the ACO also requires innovative value-based payment reform, quality transparency, etc.

Acknowledgments

Funding

This research project is supported in part by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R24: PATient-centered Involvement in Evaluating the effectiveNess of TreatmentS (PATIENTS). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. C. Daniel Mullins is the Principal Investigator of this project, and Dr. Jie Chen is the Principal Investigator of a pilot sub-project. Dr. Stephen B. Thomas is supported by the NIH-NIMHD P20 Research Center of Excellence on Race, Ethnicity and Health Disparities Research (5P20MD006737-04, Thomas, SB, PI).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Contributor Information

Jie Chen, Department of Health Services Administration, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park.

C. Daniel Mullins, Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland.

Priscilla Novak, Department of Health Services Administration, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park.

Stephen B. Thomas, Department of Health Services Administration, Maryland Center for Health Equity, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park.

References

  1. Alegría M, Polo A, Goa S, Santana L, Rothstein D, Jimenez A, Normand SL. Evaluation of a patient activation and empowerment intervention in mental health care. Medical Care. 2008;46:247–256. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318158af52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alegría M, Scribney W, Perez D, Laderman M, Keefe K. The role of patient activation on patient provider communication and quality of care for US and foreign born Latino patients. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2009;24:534–541. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1074-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alegría M, Carson N, Flores M, Li X, Shi P, Lessios AS, Shrout PE. Activation, self-management, engagement, and retention in behavioral health care: A randomized clinical trial of the DECIDE intervention. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71:557–565. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.4519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: Myths and misconceptions. Patient Education and Counseling. 2010;79:277–282. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aujoulat I, d’Hoore W, Deccache A. Patient empowerment in theory and practice: Polysemy or cacophony? Patient Education and Counseling. 2007;66:13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Aujoulat I, Marcolongo R, Bonadiman L, Deccache A. Reconsidering patient empowerment in chronic illness: a critique of models of self-efficacy and bodily control. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;66:1228–1239. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barr VJ, Robinson S, Marin-Link B, Underhill L, Dotts A, Ravensdale D, Salivaras S. The expanded chronic care model: An integration of concepts and strategies from population health promotion and the chronic care model. Healthcare Quarterly. 2003;7:73–82. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2003.16763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker E, Roblin D. Translating primary care practice climate into patient activation: the role of patient trust in physicians. Medical Care. 2008;46:795–805. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817919c0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benjamins MR, Kirby JB, Bond Huie SA. County characteristics and racial and ethnic disparities in the use of preventive services. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39:704–712. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Affairs. 2008;27:759–769. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown TT, Martinez-Gutierrez MS, Navab B. The impact of changes in county public health expenditures on general health in the population. Health Economics, and Policy Law. 2014;9:251–269. doi: 10.1017/S1744133114000024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brownson CA, Miller D, Crespo R, Neuner S, Thompson J, Wall JC, Edmont S, Fazzone P, Fisher EB, Glasgow RE. A quality improvement tool to assess self-management support in primary care. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2007;33:408–416. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33047-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, Sweeney J. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs. 2013;32:223–231. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cassidy A. Patient-Centered Medical Homes. A new way to deliver primary care may be more affordable and improve quality. But how widely adopted will the model be? Health Affairs. 2010:1–6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) [Accessed on August 9, 2014];2013a Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ACO/index.html?redirect=/aco/ 2014.
  16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs): General Information. [Accessed on August 9, 2014];2013b Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/aco/ 2014.
  17. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In-Person Assistance in the Health Insurance Marketplaces. [Accessed on August 9, 2014];2013c Available at: http://www.cms.gov/cciio/programs-and-initiatives/health-insurance-marketplaces/assistance.html.
  18. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hospital Value-Based Purchasing. [Accessed on August 9, 2014];2014 Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/hospital-value-based-purchasing/index.html?redirect=/hospital-value-based-purchasing/
  19. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) Center. [Accessed on August 9, 2014];2015 Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Center/Provider-Type/Federally-Qualified-Health-Centers-FQHC-Center.html.
  20. Chen AM, Yehle KS, Albert NM, Ferraro KF, Mason HL, Murawski MM, Plake KS. Relationships between health literacy and heart failure knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-care adherence. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2014;10:378–386. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen J, Mortensen K, Bloodworth R. Exploring contextual factors and patient activation: evidence from a nationally representative sample of patients with depression. Health Education & Behavior. 2014;41:614–624. doi: 10.1177/1090198114531781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen J, Vargas-Bustamante A. Estimating the effects of immigration status on mental health care. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2011;13:671–680. doi: 10.1007/s10903-011-9445-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Congress. Text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. [Accessed on January 22, 2015];2010 Available at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text.
  24. Corrigan J, Fisher E, Heiser S. Hospital community benefit programs: Increasing benefits to communities. Journal of American Medical Association. 2015 doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.0609. Published online. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cortes DE, Mulvaney-Day N, Fortuna L, Reinfeld S, Alegría M. Patient provider communication: understanding the role of patient activation for Latinos in mental health treatment. Health Education Behavior. 2009;36:138–154. doi: 10.1177/1090198108314618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Cunningham P, Hibbard J, Gibbons C. Raising low 'patient activation' rates among Hispanic immigrants may equal expanded coverage in reducing access disparities. Health Affairs. 2011;30:1888–1894. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dabbs AD, Song M, Geest SD, Davidson PM. Promoting patient and caregiver engagement in self-management of chronic illness. Nursing Research and Practice. 2013:180757. doi: 10.1155/2013/180757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Davidson PL, Andersen RM, Wyn R, Brown ER. A framework for evaluating safety-net and other community-level factors on access for low-income populations. Inquiry. 2004;41:21–38. doi: 10.5034/inquiryjrnl_41.1.21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Edwards ST, Bitton A, Hong J, Landon BE. Patient-centered medical home initiatives expanded in 2009–13: providers, patients, and payment incentives increased. Health Affairs. 2014;33:1823–1831. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Enthoven AC. Integrated delivery systems: the cure for fragmentation. American Journal of Managed Care. 2009;15:S284–S2902. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Feste C, Anderson RM. Empowerment: From philosophy to practice. Patient Education and Counseling. 1995;26:139–144. doi: 10.1016/0738-3991(95)00730-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Finfgeld D. Empowerment of individuals with enduring mental health problems results from concept analyses and qualitative investigations. Advances in Nursing Science. 2004;27:44–52. doi: 10.1097/00012272-200401000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fitzsimons S, Fuller R. Empowerment and its implications for clinical practice in mental health: a review. Journal of Mental Health. 2002;11:481–499. [Google Scholar]
  34. Flores G. Language barriers to health care in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;355:229–231. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp058316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Fraenkel L, McGraw S. What are the essential elements to enable patient participation in medical decision making? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2007;22:614–619. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0149-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Freedman VA, Grafova IB, Rogowski J. Neighborhoods and chronic disease onset in later life. American Journal of Public Health. 2011;101:79–86. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.178640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Freedman VA, Grafova IB, Schoeni RF, Rogowski J. Neighborhoods and disability in later life. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;66:2253–2267. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gaskin DJ, Dinwiddie GY, Chan KS, McCleary R. Residential segregation and disparities in health care services utilization. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012a;69:158–175. doi: 10.1177/1077558711420263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gaskin DJ, Dinwiddie GY, Chan KD, McCleary RR. Residential segregation and the availability of primary care physicians. Health Services Research. 2012b;47:2353–2376. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01417.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Grembowski D, Bekemeier B, Conrad D, Kreuter W. Are local health department expenditures related to racial disparities in mortality? Social Science & Medicine. 2010;71:2057–2065. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Guerrero A, Chen J, Inkelas M, Rodriguez HP, Ortega AN. Racial and ethnic disparities in pediatric experiences of family centered care. Medical Care. 2010;48:388–393. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca3ef7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Handler A, Issel M, Turnock B. A conceptual framework to measure performance of the public health system. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:1235–1239. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.8.1235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hearld LR, Alexander JA. Patient-centered care and emergency department utilization a path analysis of the mediating effects of care coordination and delays in care. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012;69:560–580. doi: 10.1177/1077558712453618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affairs. 2003;32:207–214. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Services Research. 2005;40:1918–1930. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hibbard JH, Mahoney E, Stock R, Tusler M. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self management behaviors? Health Services Research. 2007;42:1443–1463. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00669.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hibbard JH, Cunningham PJ. How engaged are consumers in their health and health care, and why does it matter? Washington (DC): Center for Studying Health System Change; 2008. [Internet]. (HSC Research Brief No. 8). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Becker ER, Roblin D, Painter MW, Perez DJ, Burbank-Schmitt E, Tusler M. Racial/ethnic disparities and consumer activation in health. Health Affairs. 2008;27:1442–1453. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ “scores”. Health Affairs. 2013;32:216–222. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Holmström I, Röing M. The relation between patient-centeredness and patient empowerment: a discussion on concepts. Patient Education and Counseling. 2010;79:167–172. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Institute of Medicine. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. James J. Patient Engagement. People actively involved in their health and health care tend to have better outcomes—and, some evidence suggests, lower costs. Health Affairs. 2013:1–6. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  53. Janz NK, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly. 1984;11:1–47. doi: 10.1177/109019818401100101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Jerant A, Sohler N, Fiscella K, Franks B, Franks P. Tailored interactive multimedia computer programs to reduce health disparities: opportunities and challenges. Patient Education and Counseling. 2011;85:323–330. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Johnson M. The shifting landscape of health care: Toward a model of health care empowerment. American Journal of Public Health. 2011;101:1541–1548. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.189829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Kish I. The blockbuster drug of the century: An engaged patient. [Accessed on Aug 9, 2014];2012 2014. Available at: http://www.hl7standards.com/blog/2012/08/28/drug-of-the-century/ [Google Scholar]
  57. Koh H, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A proposed “health literate care model” would constitute a systems approach to improving patients’ engagement in care. Health Affairs. 2013;32:357–367. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Korda H, Eldridge GN. Payment incentives and integrated care delivery: levers for health system reform and cost containment. Inquiry. 2012;48:277–287. doi: 10.5034/inquiryjrnl_48.04.01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Affairs. 2013;32:276–284. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Légaré F, Stacey D, Gagnon S, Dunn S, Pluye P, Frosch D, Kryworuchko J, Elwyn G, Gagnon MP, Graham ID. Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2011;17:554–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01515.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Link BG, Phelan J. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1995 No: 80–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Ludman E, Peterson D, Katon W, Lin E, Korff M, Ciechanowski P, Young B, Gensichen J. Improving confidence for self care in patients with depression and chronic illnesses. Behavioral Medicine. 2013;39:1–6. doi: 10.1080/08964289.2012.708682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ludwig J, Duncan GJ, Gennetian LA, Katz LF, Kessler R, Kling JR, Sanbomatsu L. Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults. Science. 2012;337:1505–1510. doi: 10.1126/science.1224648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Macartney S, Bishaw A, Fontenot K. Poverty rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007–2011. [Accessed on August 9, 2014];American Community Survey Briefs. 2013 Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf 2014.
  65. Mays GP, Smith SA. Evidence links increases in public health spending to declines in preventable deaths. Health Affairs. 2011;30:1585–1593. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Millenson ML, Macri J. Will the Affordable Care Act move patient-centeredness to center stage? Timely analysis of immediate health policy issues. [Access on August 9, 2014];Urban Institute. 2012 http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2012/03/will-the-affordable-care-act-move-patient-centeredness-to-center.html 2014. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mullins CD, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC. Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. Journal of American Medical Association. 2012;307:1587–1588. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Nygardh A, Malm D, Wikby K, Ahlström G. The experience of empowerment in the patient-staff encounter: the patient's perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2012;21:897–904. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03901.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Parchman ML, Zeber JE, Palmer RF. Participatory decision making, patient activation, medication adherence, and intermediate clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A STARNet study. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2010;8:410–417. doi: 10.1370/afm.1161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Parker JL, Regan JF, Petroski J. Beneficiary activation in the Medicare population. Medicare & Medicaid Research Review. 2014;4:E1–E14. doi: 10.5600/mmrr.004.04.b02. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. PCORI. Patient-centered outcomes research definition revision: response to public input. [Accessed on August 9, 2014];2013a Available at: http://www.pcori.org/assets/PCOR-Revised-Definition-v2-042020121.pdf 2014. [Google Scholar]
  72. PCORI. [Access on August 9, 2014];2013b Available at: http://www.pcori.org/about-us/mission-and-vision/ 2014. [Google Scholar]
  73. Quill T, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1996;125:763–769. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-9-199611010-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Rodriguez H, Chen J, Edusei K, Suh A, Bekemeier B. Local public health system influences on the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. American Journal of Public Health. 2012;102:1773–1781. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Sandman L, Granger BB, Ekman I, Munthe C. Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2012;15:115–127. doi: 10.1007/s11019-011-9336-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Shaw BA, Krause N. Exploring race variations in aging and personal control. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001;56:S119–S124. doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.2.s119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. Journal of American Medical Association. 2012;307:1583–1584. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Skolasky RL, Mackenzie EJ, Wegener ST, Riley LH., 3rd Patient activation and adherence to physical therapy in persons undergoing spine surgery. Spine. 2008;33:E784–E791. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818027f1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sofaer S, Schumann MJ. Fostering successful patient and family engagement: nursing’s critical role. [Access on August 9, 2014];2013 Available at: http://www.naqc.org/WhitePaper-PatientEngagement 2014. [Google Scholar]
  80. Torrey T. ACA insurance exchanges navigators or in-person assisters programs. [Accessed on January 10, 2015];Helping Americans choose their health insurance plans for the individual mandate. 2013 Available at: http://patients.about.com/od/AffordableCareAct/a/Aca-Insurance-Exchanges-Navigator-Or-In-person-Assister-Programs.htm. [Google Scholar]
  81. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020: Social Determinants of health. [Accessed on Nov 10, 2014]; HealthyPeople.gov. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39. Updated Nov 13, 2013.
  82. Vargas-Bustamante A, Chen J. Physicians cite hurdles ranging from lack of coverage to poor communication in providing high quality care to Latino patients. Health Affairs. 2011;30:1921–1929. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Vargas-Bustamante A, Chen J. International migration and health expenditure dynamics: analyzing spending disparities between Latino immigrants and the native U.S. population. Health Services Research. 2012;30:1921–1929. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wagner EH, Davis C, Schaefer J, Von Korff M, Austin B. A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: Are they consistent with the literature? Managed Care Quarterly. 1999;7:56–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Wang NE, Gisondi MA, Golzari M, van der Vlugt TM, Tuuli M. Socioeconomic disparities are negatively associated with pediatric emergency department aftercare compliance. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2003;10:1278–1284. doi: 10.1197/s1069-6563(03)00499-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Warth GJ. Continuity of care starts with you. [Accessed on October 14, 2014];2011 Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740856. [Google Scholar]
  87. White K, Haas JS, Williams DR. Elucidating the role of place in health care disparities: the example of racial/ethnic residential segregation. Health Services Research. 2012;47:1278–1299. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01410.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. White House. More than 11 Million Americans are Signed up for Health Insurance. [Accessed on February 26, 2015];2015 Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/17/more-11-million-americans-are-signed-health-coverage.
  89. Williams DR, Kontos EZ, Viswanath K, Haas JS, Lathan CS, MacConaill LE, Chen J, Ayanian JZ. Integrating multiple social statuses in health disparities research: the case of lung cancer. Health Services Research. 2012;47:1255–1277. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01404.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Yegian JM, Dardess P, Shannon M, Carman KL. Engaged patients will need comparative physician-level quality data and information about their out-of-pocket costs. Health Affairs. 2013;32:328–337. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES