health services research

BMC Health Services Research

Latest collections open to submissions, new: digital health and the healthcare workforce.

Guest Edited by Kerryn Butler-Henderson & Clair Sullivan

New: Researching and measuring inequalities in healthcare

Guest Edited by Magdalena Szaflarski & Zhonghua Wang

Sustainability in health services

Guest Edited by Virginia McKay & Judith Singleton 

Rural health services research

Guest Edited by Birgit Abelsen and Selina Taylor

Published collections

Advancing epidemic preparedness of health systems  

Guest edited by Yibeltal Assefa Alemu, Carl Abelardo T. Antonio​​​​​, Julie ​​​Balen & Megan Schmidt-Sane

Health services for substance use disorders

Guest edited by Chaisiri Angkurawaranon, Berkeley Franz, João Pedro Silva

Health workforce planning

Guest edited by Madhan Balasubramanian and Sunny C. Okoroafor

• Most accessed
• Latest collections

Temporal and geographical variations in diagnostic imaging in Norway

Authors: Bjørn Morten Hofmann, Ingrid Øfsti Brandsaeter, Eivind Richter Andersen, Jan Porthun and Elin Kjelle

Participatory methods used in the evaluation of medical devices: a comparison of focus groups, interviews, and a survey

Authors: Kas Woudstra, Marcia Tummers, Catharina J. M. Klijn, Lotte Sondag, Floris Schreuder, Rob Reuzel and Maroeska Rovers

Stakeholder opinions on perceived sub-standard emergency obstetric and newborn care in Ghana

Authors: Alice Ayawine, Mathias J. A. Asaarik and Roger A. Atinga

Allocating municipal services to individuals with complex rehabilitation needs – a discourse analysis of individual administrative decision letters

Authors: Maren Ekenes, Olin Oldeide and Eike Wehling

Outpatient geriatric health care in the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: a population-based spatial analysis of claims data

Authors: Nils Pfeuffer, Franziska Radicke, Maren Leiz, Kilson Moon, Wolfgang Hoffmann and Neeltje van den Berg

Most recent articles RSS

View all articles

Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction

Authors: Yafang Tsai

How nurses and their work environment affect patient experiences of the quality of care: a qualitative study

Authors: Renate AMM Kieft, Brigitte BJM de Brouwer, Anneke L Francke and Diana MJ Delnoij

Proceedings of the 3rd IPLeiria’s International Health Congress

Authors: Catarina Cardoso Tomás, Emanuel Oliveira, D. Sousa, M. Uba-Chupel, G. Furtado, C. Rocha, A. Teixeira, P. Ferreira, Celeste Alves, Stefan Gisin, Elisabete Catarino, Nelma Carvalho, Tiago Coucelo, Luís Bonfim, Carina Silva, Débora Franco…

Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses

Authors: Per Nilsen, Ida Seing, Carin Ericsson, Sarah A. Birken and Kristina Schildmeijer

PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews

Authors: Abigail M Methley, Stephen Campbell, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Rosalind McNally and Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi

Most accessed articles RSS

Innovations for better health and social justice Edited by: Dr. Magdalena Szaflarski Collection published: 30th May 2022

Advancing Dementia Care Edited by: Dr. Clarissa Giebel and Tillie Cryer Collection published: 13 May 2020

Health Services Research for Opioid Use Disorders Edited by: Dr. Kim Hoffman Collection published: 31 March 2020

Management of Infectious Diseases in Health Systems and Services Edited by: Tillie Cryer Collection published: 19 March 2020

Aims and scope

BMC Health Services Research  is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research. The journal has a special focus on digital health, governance, health policy, health system quality and safety, healthcare delivery and access to healthcare, healthcare financing and economics, implementing reform, and the health workforce.  

Become an Editorial Board Member

We are seeking new members to join our international Editorial Board.

BMC Health Services Research Blogs

Highlights of the BMC Series – February 2024

21 March 2024

Highlights of the BMC Series – November 2023

22 December 2023

World AIDS Day 2023: Highlights from the BMC Series

01 December 2023

Editor's picks

Latest Tweets

Your browser needs to have JavaScript enabled to view this timeline

Affiliated with

Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology

An International Journal Devoted to Methods for the Study of the Utilization, Quality, Cost and Outcomes of Health Care

Reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the field, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology addresses the needs of interlocking communities: methodologists in statistics, econometrics, social and behavioral sciences; designers and analysts of health policy and health services research projects; and health care providers and policy makers who need to properly understand and evaluate the results of published research. The journal strives to enhance the level of methodologic rigor in health services and outcomes research, and contributes to the development of methodologic standards in the field. The journal publishes: Research papers on quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; Case Studies describing applications of quantitative and qualitative methodology in health services and outcomes research; Review Articles synthesizing and popularizing methodologic developments; Tutorials; Articles on computational issues and software reviews; Book reviews; and Notices.

This is a transformative journal , you may have access to funding.

Latest issue

Volume 24, Issue 1

Latest articles

Practical challenges in mediation analysis: a guide for applied researchers.

• Megan S. Schuler
• Donna L. Coffman
• Daniel F. McCaffrey

A machine learning approach for diagnostic and prognostic predictions, key risk factors and interactions

• Murtaza Nasir
• Nichalin S. Summerfield
• Asil Oztekin

Evaluating medical providers in terms of patient health disparities: a statistical framework

• Nicholas Hartman
• Claudia Dahlerus

Exact-matching algorithms using administrative health claims database equivalence factors for real-world data analysis based on the target trial emulation framework

• Yuichi Nishioka
• Emiri Morita
• Tomoaki Imamura

Blockchain based E-procurement system in healthcare

• Bipin Kumar Rai
• Vedant Dubey
• Khushi Dubey

Journal updates

Publish in this journal.

Read more here about why publishing in Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology is right for you!

Journal information

• Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List
• Current Index to Statistics
• Emerging Sources Citation Index
• Google Scholar
• Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Semantic Scholar
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Springer policies

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR)

NICHSR Home   |   About Us

National Information Center on Health Services Research & Health Care Technology (NICHSR)

The National Information Center on Health Services Research & Health Care Technology (NICHSR) ensures that the NLM products address the information needs of the health services research workforce.

Current Products

Health services research (hsr) pubmed queries.

• A search interface to find PubMed citations relating to health care quality or to health care costs, e.g.: Appropriateness; Process assessment; Outcomes assessment; Costs; Economics; Qualitative research; and Quality improvement.

NLM Digital Collections: Health Policy and Services Research

•  Health Policy and Services Research information is available through Digital Collections in the Health Policy and Services Research collection .

Customer Support

• If you need help, or have suggestions, please contact  NLM Customer Service.

Outreach and Training

• Finding and Using Health Statistics

Health Care Data Standards

• Health Information Technology and Health Data Standards at NLM
• NIH Common Data Elements (CDE) Repository
• Supporting Interoperability – Terminology, Subsets and Other Resources from NLM

Related Resources

• History of Health Services Research Project

NICHSR Updates

As part of a broader NLM reorganization, the National Information Center on Health Services Research & Health Care Technology (NICHSR) website has been updated to reflect changes in our product offerings. As of September 14, the following products are no longer supported:

HSR Information Central (HSRIC)

• See an archived version of this site at HSR Information Central (HSRIC) - Last Archive capture date - September 12, 2021. Note: Some links on the archived site might not work.

Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj)

• See an archived version of this site at Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj) - Last Archive capture date - September 12, 2021. Note: Some links on the archived site might not work.

Many of the frequently used resources from the HSRProj databased are now available from funders, and can be found at:

• Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
• Commonwealth Fund (CMWL)
• Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development
• NIH RePORTER
• Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)

HSRProj database in XML format

Note : This resource was retired on September 14, 2021 and is no longer updated.

• Data from the "Download Current HSRProj Data" link from the archived version of the NLM Data Distribution page is available from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20231114161919/https://ftp.nlm.nih.gov/projects/HSRProject/   (If you’re looking at an archived version of this page and the hyperlink to the left doesn't work, copy and paste the URL into your browser.)
• Note the FTP Archived version ISN'T maintained by NLM.
• Links to the FTP site and Data Dictionary - https://datadiscovery.nlm.nih.gov/Research/Health-Services-Research-Projects-in-Progress-HSRP/6ia3-k3g2/about_data . (If you’re looking at an archived version of this page and the hyperlink to the left doesn't work, copy and paste the URL into your browser.)
• Data set column descriptions -  https://datadiscovery.nlm.nih.gov/Research/Health-Services-Research-Projects-in-Progress-HSRP/rysd-8s3y/about_data . (If you’re looking at an archived version of this page and the hyperlink to the left doesn't work, copy and paste the URL into your browser.)

Health Services/Sciences Research Resources (HSRR)

• The HSRR database was designed for health care researchers and health sciences librarians seeking data resources used in health services research, the behavioral and social sciences and public health.
• See an archived version of this site at Health Services/Sciences Research Resources (HSRR) - Last Archive capture date - August 20, 2021. Note: Some links on the archived site might not work.

Partners in Information Access for the Public Health Workforce (PHPartners)

• See an archived version of this site at Partners in Information Access for the Public Health Workforce (PHPartners) - Last Archive capture date - September 12, 2021. Note: Some links on the archived site might not work.
• Select resources from PHPartners have been archived and are available upon request. Please contact  NLM Customer Service.

Last Reviewed: February 22, 2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Hughes RG, editor. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Apr.

Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses.

Chapter 8 health services research: scope and significance.

Donald M. Steinwachs ; Ronda G. Hughes .

Affiliations

The provision of high-quality, affordable, health care services is an increasingly difficult challenge. Due to the complexities of health care services and systems, investigating and interpreting the use, costs, quality, accessibility, delivery, organization, financing, and outcomes of health care services is key to informing government officials, insurers, providers, consumers, and others making decisions about health-related issues. Health services researchers examine the access to care, health care costs and processes, and the outcomes of health services for individuals and populations.

The field of health services research (HSR) is relied on by decisionmakers and the public to be the primary source of information on how well health systems in the United States and other countries are meeting this challenge. The “goal of HSR is to provide information that will eventually lead to improvements in the health of the citizenry.” 1 Drawing on theories, knowledge, and methods from a range of disciplines, 2 HSR is a multidisciplinary field that moves beyond basic and applied research, drawing on all the health professions and on many academic disciplines, including biostatistics, epidemiology, health economics, medicine, nursing, operations research, psychology, and sociology. 3

In 1979, the Institute of Medicine defined HSR as “inquiry to produce knowledge about the structure, processes, or effects of personal health services” 4 (p. 14). This was expanded upon in 2002 by AcademyHealth, the professional organization of the HSR field, with the following definition, which broadly describes the scope of HSR:

Health services research is the multidisciplinary field of scientific investigation that studies how social factors, financing systems, organizational structures and processes, health technologies, and personal behaviors affect access to health care, the quality and cost of health care, and ultimately our health and well-being. Its research domains are individuals, families, organizations, institutions, communities, and populations. 5

More specifically, HSR informs and evaluates innovations in health policy. These include changes in Medicare and Medicaid coverage, disparities in access and utilization of care, innovations in private health insurance (e.g., consumer-directed health plans), and trends among those without health insurance. 6–10 The health care industry continues to change, and HSR examines the impact of organizational changes on access to care, quality, and efficiency (e.g., growth in for-profit hospital systems). As new diagnostic and treatment technologies are introduced, HSR examines their impact on patient outcomes of care and health care costs.

The definition of HSR also highlights the importance of examining the contribution of services to the health of individuals and broader populations. HSR applied at the population level is particularly important in understanding health system performance and the impact of health policy on the public’s health. In the United States, the National Healthcare Quality Report, 11 National Healthcare Disparities Report, 12 and Healthy People Year 2010 13 exemplify our capacity for monitoring quality and assessing change. These reports tell us that the American quality of care is inconsistent and could be substantially improved. The associated cost of health care services is monitored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS reports tell us that American health care is the most expensive in the world, consuming approximately 16 percent of America’s gross domestic product. 14

Beyond health policy, HSR examines the process of care and the interactions of patients and providers. For example, HSR methods have been developed to describe doctor-patient communication patterns and examine their impact on patient adherence, satisfaction, and outcomes of care. 15–17

Advances in HSR measurement methodologies have made possible policy innovations. Prospective payment of hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care by Medicare became possible with the development of robust case-mix measurement systems. 18 CMS was able to initiate a pay-for-performance demonstration, rewarding hospitals with better quality performance, using valid and robust measures of quality. 14 Innovations in health care policy are frequently made possible by advances in measurement of indicators of health system performance.

• History of Health Services Research

The history of HSR is generally considered to have begun in the 1950s and 1960s with the first funding of grants for health services research focused on the impact of hospital organizations. 19 , 20 On the contrary, HSR began with Florence Nightingale when she collected and analyzed data as the basis for improving the quality of patient care and outcomes. 21 Also significant in the history of HSR was the concern raised about the distribution, quality, and cost of care in the late 1920s that led to one of the first U.S. efforts to examine the need for medical services and their costs, undertaken in 1927 by the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care. 22 The committee published a series of 28 reports and recommendations that have had a significant impact on how medical care is organized and delivered in the United States. 23 Other key reports of historical importance to HSR were, for example, the national health survey in 1935–1936 by the Public Health Service, the inventory of the nation’s hospitals by the American Hospital Association’s Commission on Hospital Care in 1944, and studies by the American Hospital Association’s Commission on Chronic Illness on the prevalence and prevention of chronic illness in the community. 23

In 1968, the National Center for Health Services Research and Development was established as part of the U.S. Public Health Services to address concerns with access to health services, quality of care, and costs. The Center funded demonstration projects to measure quality and investigator-initiated research grants. In 1989, Congress created the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and broadened its mission to focus attention on variations in medical practice, patient outcomes of care, and the dissemination of evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of common disorders. Later Congress reauthorized and renamed the agency, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). AHRQ provides Federal leadership for the field, investing in methods for quality measurement, development of patient safety methods, and health information technology (e.g., electronic health records and decision support systems).

The Federal role in HSR has expanded over time, and investments in HSR are made by multiple Federal agencies. In addition to AHRQ, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, CMS, and other Federal agencies fund HSR. The diversification of funding comes, in part, from the recognition that HSR is important in managing health care systems, such as the Veterans Health Administration, and provides essential information on the translation of scientific discoveries into clinical practice in American communities, such as those funded by National Institutes of Health. It is estimated that total Federal funding of HSR was $1.5 billion in 2003, of which AHRQ was responsible for approximately 20 percent. 24

Private funding of HSR has also grown over time. Funding by private foundations has a significant role and complements Federal funding. Among the many foundations funding HSR are the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Commonwealth Fund, Kaiser Family Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, and Hartford Foundation. Other private funding sources include the health care industry, for example, pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, and health care systems.

• Goals for Health Services and Patient Outcomes

The goal of health services is to protect and improve the health of individuals and populations. In a landmark 2001 report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21 st Century, 25 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences proposed that the goals for health services should include six critical elements:

• Patient Safety: Patients should not be harmed by health care services that are intended to help them. The IOM report, To Err Is Human , 26 found that between 46,000 and 98,000 Americans were dying in hospitals each year due to medical errors. Subsequent research has found medical errors common across all health care settings. The problem is not due to the lack of dedication to quality care by health professionals, but due to the lack of systems that prevent errors from occurring and/or prevent medical errors from reaching the patient.
• Effectiveness: Effective care is based on scientific evidence that treatment will increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes. Evidence comes from laboratory experiments, clinical research (usually randomized controlled trials), epidemiological studies, and outcomes research. The availability and strength of evidence varies by disorder and treatment.
• Timeliness: Seeking and receiving health care is frequently associated with delays in obtaining an appointment and waiting in emergency rooms and doctors’ offices. Failure to provide timely care can deny people critically needed services or allow health conditions to progress and outcomes to worsen. Health care needs to be organized to meet the needs of patients in a timely manner.
• Patient Centered: Patient-centered care recognizes that listening to the patient’s needs, values, and preferences is essential to providing high-quality care. Health care services should be personalized for each patient, care should be coordinated, family and friends on whom the patient relies should be involved, and care should provide physical comfort and emotional support.
• Efficiency: The U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet there is consistent evidence that the United States does not produce the best health outcomes 27–30 or the highest levels of satisfaction. 31 The goal is to continually identify waste and inefficiency in the provision of health care services and eliminate them.
• Equity: The health care system should benefit all people. The evidence is strong and convincing that the current system fails to accomplish this goal. The IOM report, Unequal Treatment , 32 documented pervasive differences in the care received by racial and ethnic minorities. The findings were that racial and ethnic minorities are receiving poorer quality of care than the majority population, even after accounting for differences in access to health services.

Crossing the Quality Chasm concludes that for the American health care system to attain these goals, transformational changes are needed. 25 The field of HSR provides the measurement tools by which progress toward these goals is assessed, as seen in the National Healthcare Quality Report. 11 Equally important, health services researchers are developing and evaluating innovative approaches to improve quality of care, involving innovations in organization, financing, use of technology, and roles of health professionals.

• Evaluating the Quality of Health Care

HSR evaluation of quality of care has proven to be an inexact science and complex, even though its definition is relatively simple: “Quality of care is the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge.” 1 This definition draws attention to the importance of the application of current professional knowledge in the diagnostic and treatment processes of health care. The goal of quality care is to increase the likelihood of achieving desired health outcomes, as expressed by the patient.

The complexity in measuring quality comes from gaps in our knowledge regarding which services, for which patients, will actually improve the likelihood of desired health outcomes. Also, patients need not have the same desired health outcomes and therefore might not receive the same care for an identical health problem, further complicating the measurement of quality of care. Quality measurement has advanced substantially, but it remains early in its development.

The conceptual framework widely applied in evaluating quality comes from years of research and the insightful analysis of Avedis Donabedian. 33 He formalized the conceptual model for describing, analyzing, and evaluating the quality of care using three dimensions: (1) structure, (2) process, and (3) outcome. This model is applied in the evaluation of health services and the accreditation of health care providers and organizations.

Seminal research about variation in the quality of care patients received brought to focus the need to monitor and improve the quality of health care. Wennberg and Gittelsohn 34 , 35 found wide variation in practice patterns among community physicians, surgical procedures, and hospitals. Brook and colleagues 36 found that a small number of physicians were responsible for a large number of improperly administered injections. This was the precursor to research on the appropriateness of procedures and services under specific circumstances 36 , 37 as well as the development of practice guidelines and standards for quality care. 38 Yet the challenge of research on variations in care is the implication of the inappropriateness of care. The challenge is determining whether there is a direct relationship between rates of utilization, variations in appropriateness, and quality of care.

One of the challenges in understanding quality, how to measure it, and how to improve it is the influence of physical, socioeconomic, and work environments. Income, race, and gender—as well as individuals within society and organizations—influence health and risks to health. 40 Researchers have found that differences in internal factors, such as collaborative relationships with physicians, decentralized clinical decisionmaking, and positive administrative support, impact nurse and patient outcomes 41 , 42 and the quality and safety of care. 43 Differences in external factors, such as insurance and geographic location, can influence access to available health care professionals and resources, what type of care is afforded patients, and the impact of care on patients. The structure, process, and outcome dimensions of quality are influenced by both internal and external factors.

Structure of Health Care

The structure of health care broadly includes the facilities (e.g., hospitals and clinics), personnel (e.g., number of nurses and physicians), and technology that create the capacity to provide health services. Structural characteristics are expected to influence the quality of health care services. One component in the accreditation of health care facilities (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes) is the review of the adequacy of structural characteristics, including staffing, on-call resources, technology, and support services (laboratory, pharmacy, radiology). The structural resources of health care facilities and organizations are the foundation upon which quality health care services are provided.

Process of Care

The interactions between the health care providers and patients over time comprise the process of health care. The process of care may be examined from multiple perspectives: the sequence of services received over time, the relationship of health services to a specific patient complaint or diagnosis, and the numbers and types of services received over time or for a specific health problem. Examining the time sequence of health care services provides insights into the timeliness of care, organizational responsiveness, and efficiency. Linking services to a specific patient complaint or diagnosis provides insights into the natural history of problem presentation and the subsequent processes of care, including diagnosis, treatment, management, and recovery. Examining the natural history of a presenting health complaint across patients will reveal variations in patterns of care. For example, presenting complaints for some patients never resolve into a specific diagnosis. An initial diagnosis may change as more information is obtained. Patients may suffer complications in the treatment process. Also, the process of care may provide insights into outcomes of care (e.g., return visit for complications). Generally it is not possible to examine the process of care and determine how fully the patient has recovered prior health status by the end of the episode of treatment. For this reason, special investigations are needed to assess outcomes of care.

Evaluation of the process of care can be done by applying the six goals for health care quality. 25 Was the patient’s safety protected (i.e., were there adverse events due to medical errors or errors of omission)? Was care timely and not delayed or denied? Were the diagnosis and treatments provided consistent with scientific evidence and best professional practice? Was the care patient centered? Were services provided efficiently? Was the care provided equitable? Answers to these questions can help us understand if the process of care needs improvement and where quality improvement efforts should be directed.

Outcomes of Care

The value of health care services lies in their capacity to improve health outcomes for individuals and populations. Health outcomes are broadly conceptualized to include clinical measures of disease progression, patient-reported health status or functional status, satisfaction with health status or quality of life, satisfaction with services, and the costs of health services. Historically, quality assessment has emphasized clinical outcomes, for example, disease-specific measures. However, disease-specific measures may not tell us much about how well the patient is able to function and whether or not desired health outcomes have been achieved. To understand the patients’ outcomes, it is necessary to ask patients about their outcomes, including health status, quality of life, and satisfaction with services. HSR has developed valid and robust standardized questionnaires to obtain patient-reported information on these dimensions of health outcomes. As these are more widely applied, we are learning about the extent to which health care services are improving health.

Public Health Perspective on Health Services

Another perspective on health care services comes from the field of public health in which preventive health services are conceptualized at three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. 44 Primary prevention includes immunizations, healthy lifestyles, and working and living in risk-free environments. Primary prevention seeks to prevent disease or delay its onset. Examples of primary prevention include immunizations against infectious disease; smoking prevention or cessation; and promotion of regular exercise, weight control, and a balanced diet. Secondary prevention includes the range of interventions that can reduce the impact of disease morbidity once it occurs and slow its progression. With the increasing burden of chronic diseases, much of the health care provided is directed at secondary prevention. Tertiary prevention is directed at rehabilitation for disabilities resulting from disease and injury. The goal of tertiary prevention is to return individuals to the highest state of functioning (physical, mental, and social) possible. The public health framework expands the structure, process, and outcome conceptual model by identifying the role and value of health services at three stages: prior to onset of disease, disease management, and disease recovery and rehabilitation.

• Methodologies and Data Sources Used in Health Services Research

The interdisciplinary character of HSR draws on methods and data sources common to the many disciplines that form the intellectual underpinnings of the field. This section discusses the measurement of effectiveness and efficacy of health services and some of the methods and data sources used to understand effectiveness. Effectiveness is one of the six goals of health services. Effectiveness is interrelated with the other five goals, and some of these interrelationships are discussed.

Efficacy and Effectiveness

An important distinction is made between efficacy and effectiveness of health services. Efficacy is generally established using randomized controlled trial (RCT) methods to test whether or not clinical interventions make a difference in clinical outcomes. A good example is the series of studies required for Food and Drug Administration approval of a new drug before it is certified as safe and efficacious and allowed to be used in the United States. Efficacy research is generally done with highly select groups of patients where the impact of the drug can be validly measured and results are not confounded by the presence of comorbid conditions and their treatments. The efficacy question is: What impact does a clinical intervention have under ideal conditions?

In contrast, effectiveness research is undertaken in community settings and generally includes the full range of individuals who would be prescribed the clinical intervention. Many of these individuals will have multiple health problems and be taking multiple medications, unlike those who were recruited to the RCT. Effectiveness research is seeking to answer the question: Who will benefit from the clinical intervention among all those people in the community who have a specific health problem(s)?

Both efficacy and effectiveness questions are important. Logically, effectiveness research would be conducted after finding the clinical intervention to be efficacious. However, there are many treatments for which no efficacy information exists; the treatments are accepted as common practice, and it would not be ethical to withhold treatments from a control group in an RCT. As a result, effectiveness research may not have the benefit of efficacy findings.

The routine use of an RCT to evaluate efficacy began in the 1960s and is the accepted procedure for evaluating new medications. However, this standard is not applied across all health care services and treatments. Most surgical procedures are not evaluated using an RCT. Intensive care units have never been evaluated using an RCT, nor are nurse staffing decisions in hospitals or the evaluation of many medical devices. We currently accept different standards of evidence depending on the treatment technology. As a result, the level of evidence guiding clinical and public health decisionmaking varies.

Methods for Effectiveness Research

A variety of methods are used to examine effectiveness of health services. RCT methods are not usually applied in effectiveness research because the intervention being studied has demonstrated efficacy or is acknowledged as accepted clinical practice. When this is true, it would be unethical to randomly assign individuals who would be expected to benefit from the intervention to a control group not receiving an efficacious treatment. We will discuss when RCT methods can be used to test effectiveness and provide several examples. More commonly, effectiveness research uses statistical methods for comparing treatments across nonequivalent groups.

RCT and Policy Research

RCT study methods can be used to compare the effectiveness and costs of services across randomly assigned representative population groups. In an RCT, study participants are randomly assigned to two or more groups to ensure comparability and avoid any selection bias. At least one group receives an intervention (clinical, organizational, and/or financial), and usually one group serves as a control group, receiving a current standard of care, sometimes referred to as “usual care.” Two examples of effectiveness research using an RCT methodology to answer policy questions are described.

Health insurance experiment

Probably the first application of RCT methods in effectiveness research was undertaken in the 1970s as a health insurance experiment. The experiment was designed to test the impact on cost and health outcomes of different levels of insurance deductibles and copayment rates. A total of 3,958 people, ages 14–61, were randomized to a set of insurance plans and followed over 3 to 5 years. 45

The economic impact of receiving free care in one plan versus being in a plan requiring payment out-of-pocket of deductibles and co-insurance had the expected impact on utilization. Those paying a share of their medical bills utilized approximately one-third fewer doctor visits and were hospitalized one-third less frequently.

The impact on 10 health measures of free health insurance versus paying a portion of medical care costs out of pocket was evaluated. The findings were that there was largely no effect on health as measured by physical functioning, role functioning, mental health, social contacts, health perceptions, smoking, weight, serum cholesterol, diastolic blood pressure, vision, and risk of dying. 46 The exceptions were that individuals with poor vision improved under free care, as did low-income persons with high blood pressure.

Medicare preventive services experiment

A more recent example of RCT methods applied in HSR is the Baltimore Medicare Preventive Services Demonstration. The study evaluated the impact on cost and outcomes of offering a defined preventive services package to Medicare beneficiaries. This was compared to usual Medicare coverage, which paid for few preventive services. The preventive services coverage being evaluated included an annual preventive visit with screening tests and health counseling. The physician could request a preventive followup visit during the year, which would also be covered. Medicare beneficiaries (n = 4,195) were randomized to preventive services (the intervention group) or usual care (the control group). Sixty-three percent of those in the intervention group had at least one preventive visit. Significant differences were found in health outcomes between intervention and control groups. Among the 45 percent with declining health status, as measured by the Quality of Well-Being scale, 47 the decline was significantly less in the group offered preventive services. Mortality was also significantly lower in the intervention group. There was no significant impact of preventive services on utilization and cost. 48

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and RCTs

The passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) included provisions for the funding of comparative effectiveness studies. AHRQs’ Effective Health Care Program (authorized under MMA Section 1013) informs comparative clinical effectiveness efforts by conducting and supporting research and evidence syntheses on priority topics to CMS.

Comparative effectiveness studies ask the question: Which of the alternative treatments available is best and for whom? Interest in this question reflects how advances in science have provided multiple treatment options for many conditions. Currently, there is no systematic process by which treatment options are compared and matched to the needs of different types of patients. Frequently, patients are started on one treatment and then may be prescribed alternative treatments if they cannot tolerate the treatment or if it is not as effective as expected. RCT methods can be used to evaluate comparative effectiveness of an intervention in treatment and control populations. This is ethical to do when there is no evidence that the treatments are not equivalent.

An example of a comparative effectiveness study using RCT methods is the CATIE study, testing alternative antipsychotic medications in the treatment of schizophrenia. A study of 1,493 persons with schizophrenia compared five of the newer antipsychotic medications (second generation) and also compared them against one of the first-generation antipsychotic medications. 49 , 50 The findings were surprising to many. The second-generation antipsychotics were no more effective in controlling psychotic symptoms than the first-generation drug. There was one exception, the drug Clozapine. 51 Furthermore, second-generation medications showed significant side effects that can affect health outcomes. These included weight gain, metabolic changes, extrapyramidal symptoms, and sedation effects. Each medication showed a somewhat different side-effect risk profile. From a positive perspective, the findings indicated that the clinician and patient can choose any of these medications as first-line treatment except Clozapine, which is generally used for treatment-resistant cases due to more intensive clinical monitoring requirements. The ultimate choice of treatment will depend on the patient’s ability to tolerate side effects that vary by drug.

The conduct of any RCT is resource intensive, requiring the recruitment of participants, and participants must give informed consent to be randomized. The rationale for making this investment may depend on the importance of the policy or practice issue. As shown, RCT methods can be applied to address policy and clinical care concerns with effectiveness. To the extent that the RCT includes a broad cross-section of people who would be affected by a policy or receive a clinical treatment, this methodology provides robust effectiveness findings.

Comparing Effectiveness and Costs Across Nonequivalent Groups

A range of statistical methods can be used to compare nonequivalent groups (i.e., groups receiving different treatments or exposures when there has been no random assignment to ensure comparability of group membership). It is not practical to review all the specific statistical approaches that can be applied. In general, the statistical methods seek to adjust for nonequivalent characteristics between groups that are expected to influence the outcome of interest (i.e., make the comparisons fair). Statistical adjustment for nonequivalent characteristics is referred to as “risk adjustment.” The foundations for risk adjustment come from multiple disciplines. Epidemiologic methods are routinely used to identify and estimate disease and outcomes risk factors. These methods are applicable in comparative effectiveness evaluations. 52

Operations research uses methods for creating homogeneous groups predictive of cost or disease outcomes. These methods are used to make fair comparisons across provider practices and health plans and to control the cost of health care. They also have been used in designing payment systems, including diagnostically related groups used in Medicare’s Prospective Payment System to reimburse hospitals for care rendered to Medicare beneficiaries, and resource-based relative value scales used in Medicare’s physician payment system. Diagnostically related groups are used to standardize and rationalize patient care in hospitals—provided largely by nurses and other health professionals—and resource-based relative value scales are used to standardize and rationalize patient care in outpatient settings—care provided largely by physicians and nurse practitioners. Other disciplines also contribute to our understanding of risk factors for the range of health outcomes, including mortality, health and functional status, quality of life, and rehabilitation and return to work

The basic form of a nonequivalent group comparison includes adjusting the outcomes of each group for the risk factors that are known to affect the occurrence and/or severity of the outcomes being evaluated. 53 For many disease outcomes, risk factors include demographic characteristics (age, gender), disease-specific risk factors (e.g., health behaviors, environmental exposures, and clinical indicators of risk), and indicators of health status (e.g., presence of comorbid conditions). After adjustment for risks factors, variations in access to care and quality of care (e.g., choice of treatment and adherence to treatment) would be expected to explain the remaining observed variation in outcomes. Ideally, the nonequivalent group comparison makes it possible to compare the effectiveness of alternative treatments and assess the impact of poor access to care. One limitation of this methodology is the limit of current knowledge regarding all relevant disease risk factors. Even when risk factors are known, limits on data availability and accuracy of risk factor measurement have to be considered.

Risk adjustment methods are also used to make cost comparisons across health care providers to determine which providers are more efficient. Instead of adjusting for disease risk factors, adjustments are made for the costliness of the patient mix (case mix) and differences in costs of labor, space, and services in the local area. Comparisons may be made to assess efficiency of providing specific services (e.g., hospitalization, office visit, or laboratory test). These comparisons would use case-mix measures that adjust for the costliness of different mixes of hospital episodes. 18 Comparisons of the total cost of care for insured populations would apply case-mix measures that adjust for disease and health factors that affect total cost of care. 54

Data Sources for Effectiveness Research

A range of data sources is used in effectiveness research, including administrative and billing data, chart reviews and electronic health records, and survey questionnaires. The following discussion identifies major attributes of each category of data source.

Medical records

Medical records document the patient’s presenting problem or condition, tests and physical exam findings, treatment, and followup care. The medical record is generally the most complete source of clinical information on the patient’s care. However, medical records are generally not structured to ensure the physician or other provider records all relevant information. The completeness of medical record information can vary considerably. If the patient does not return for followup care, the medical record may provide no information on outcomes of care. If a patient sees multiple providers during the course of treatment, each with its own separate medical record, complete information on treatment requires access to all the records. Lack of standardization of medical records also can make abstracting records for research very resource intensive.

Administrative and billing data

Health care providers generally have administrative and billing data systems that capture a limited and consistent set of data on every patient and service provided. These systems uniquely identify the patient and link information on insurance coverage and billing. Each service received by the patient is linked to the patient using a unique patient identifier. Services are identified using accepted codes (e.g., ICD9-CM, CPT), together with date of service, provider identifier, and other relevant information for billing or management reporting. Administrative data make it possible to identify all individual patients seen by a provider and produce a profile of all services received by each patient over any defined time period. Administrative data are comprehensive and the data are generally complete (i.e., no problems with missing data). The primary limitation is the data set collected by administrative systems is very limited and lacks the detail of the medical record.

Administrative data systems can provide some insights into quality and outcomes of care. AHRQ has developed software that provides quality indicators and patient safety measures using one administrative data set, hospital discharge abstracts. 55 , 56 Utilization-based indicators of outcome include rehospitalization, return to surgery during a hospitalization, and incidence of complications; some systems include information on death. Administrative data can efficiently provide quality and outcomes indicators for defined populations and for health systems. Other applications of administrative data include assessing efficiency, timeliness, and equity. The limitation is that there are many health conditions and health outcomes that cannot currently be measured using administrative data.

Survey questionnaires

Neither the medical record nor the administrative data capture information on the patient’s experience in health or patient-reported outcomes of care. Survey questionnaires are routinely used to obtain information on patient satisfaction in health plans. A widely used example is the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems or CAHPS. 57

Information on the impact of health conditions on health and functional status has to come from the patient. This may be obtained at the time of a visit or hospitalization. However, to assess patient outcomes of care, systematic followup of patients after the completion of treatment is generally required. This can be done using mail questionnaires, telephone interviews, or in-person interviews. The HSR field has developed health-status and quality-of-life measures that can be used no matter what health conditions the patient has. 47 , 58–60 Numerous condition-specific measures of outcome are also used. 53

Effectiveness research relies on a range of data sources. Some are routinely collected in the process of medical care and patient billing. Others may require special data collection, including medical record abstracts to obtain detailed clinical data and survey questionnaires to gain information on the patient’s perspective on treatment and outcomes. Efficient strategies for examining effectiveness may use administrative data to examine a limited set of data on all patients, and a statistically representative sample of patients for in-depth analysis using data from chart abstracts and survey questionnaires.

Using HSR Methods To Improve Clinical Practice

HSR research tools can be applied in clinical settings to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes. These tools are used as part of quality improvement programs in hospitals, clinics, and health plans. Two examples illustrate applications to improve quality-of-care performance.

Evidence-based treatment

For many chronic medical conditions, clinical research has evaluated the efficacy of diagnostic methods and treatment interventions. As a result, evidence-based reviews of research literature can provide a basis for establishing quality-of-care criteria against which to judge current practice. In a national study of quality of medical care, it was found that only 55 percent of patients received evidence-based treatments for common disorders and preventive care. 61 The researchers examined treatment for a range of health conditions, using a national sample of medical records abstracts. For each quality criterion, a classification was applied to determine if the quality-of-care deficiency was one of underuse, overuse, or misuse. Greater problems were found with underuse (46 percent) than with overuse (11 percent). Quality of care varied by condition: senile cataracts scored highest, 78 percent of recommended care received, and alcohol dependence scored lowest, 10 percent of recommended care received. Overall, only about half of recommended care was received, frequently due to underuse of services.

Researchers have sought to identify why rates of conformance with evidence-based treatments are low. Frequently cited barriers to evidence-based practice include physician disagreement with the evidence, perception that patients will not accept treatment, low ratings of self-efficacy as a provider of the treatment, and difficulty of integrating the evidence-based treatment into existing practice. 62 More needs to be learned how to assist health care providers to overcome barriers to the adoption of evidence-based practices.

The described data sources and methods can be applied in clinical settings to assess conformance to evidence-based quality criteria and provide feedback to clinicians. If electronic health records are available, the feedback and reminders may be directly incorporated into the medical record and seen by the clinician at the time of a visit. Intermountain Health Care utilizes its electronic health records to monitor adherence to evidence-based quality standards and to provide decision support to clinicians when seeing patients. This strategy has contributed to substantial improvements in their quality performance. 63

Outcomes management system

In 1988, Paul Ellwood proposed the adoption of outcomes management system (OMS) as a method to build clinical intelligence on “what treatments work, for whom, and under what circumstances.” 64 OMS would require linking information on the patient’s experience with outcomes of care and information on diagnosis and treatment that would usually come from the medical record.

In 1991, the Managed Health Care Association, an employer organization, brought together a group of employers and their health plan partners who were interested in testing the OMS concept in health plans. 65 To do so would require a set of methods that could be widely applied across health plans with differing information systems. The methodology chosen was for each of 16 health plans to identify all adult enrollees with at least two diagnoses of asthma over the previous 2 years. A stratified sample was chosen with half of the enrollees having more severe asthma (e.g., hospitalization or emergency room visit in the past 2 years) and the other enrollees having less severe asthma (outpatient visits only). Each adult received a questionnaire asking about their asthma treatment and health status. Followup surveys were done in each of 2 successive years to track changes over time.

The findings were compared to national treatment recommendations for adult asthma. 66 Across the health plans, 26 percent of severe asthmatics did not have a corticosteroid inhaler, and 42 percent used it daily, as recommended. 67 Only 5 percent of patients reported monitoring their asthma using a home peak flow meter. Approximately half of adults with asthma reported having the information they needed to avoid asthma attacks, to take appropriate actions when an asthma flare-up occurs, and to adjust medications when their asthma gets worse. Health plans used the baseline findings to develop quality-improvement interventions, which varied across health plans. Followup surveys of the patient cohort provided feedback to health plans on their success in improving asthma treatment and outcomes over time.

This chapter has provided a definition and history of the field of health services research and discussed how this field is examining quality-of-care issues and seeking to improve quality of care. Comparisons of current practice to evidence-based standards with feedback to clinicians and the integration of patient-reported outcomes are two examples of how HSR tools can be used to provide quality-improvement information for health care organizations. These examples utilize multiple data sources, including medical records, patient surveys, and administrative data. The opportunities for nurse researchers to provide invaluable contributions to the growing field of health services research are innumerable.

• Cite this Page Steinwachs DM, Hughes RG. Health Services Research: Scope and Significance. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Apr. Chapter 8.
• PDF version of this page (92K)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Advances in Patient Safety

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: the anatomy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical District 17 Health Services Research and Development Field Program. [Health Serv Res. 1990] The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: the anatomy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical District 17 Health Services Research and Development Field Program. Demakis JG, Turpin RS, Conrad KJ, Stiers WM, Weaver FM, Sinacore JM, Cowper DC, Darcy LA, Huck MN, Friedman BS. Health Serv Res. 1990 Apr; 25(1 Pt 2):269-85.
• Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions. [Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ)...] Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions. Hersh WR, Wallace JA, Patterson PK, Shapiro SE, Kraemer DF, Eilers GM, Chan BK, Greenlick MR, Helfand M. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2001 Aug; (24 Suppl):1-32.
• Review Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care [ 2017] Review Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Wright J, Meads D, Black N, Valderas JM, Pawson R. 2017 Jan
• Health systems research in maternal and child health challenges, problems and prescriptions. [Indian J Matern Child Health. ...] Health systems research in maternal and child health challenges, problems and prescriptions. Deodhar NS. Indian J Matern Child Health. 1994 Oct-Dec; 5(4):88-94.
• Review Improving patient experience in primary care: a multimethod programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience [ 2017] Review Improving patient experience in primary care: a multimethod programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience Burt J, Campbell J, Abel G, Aboulghate A, Ahmed F, Asprey A, Barry H, Beckwith J, Benson J, Boiko O, et al. 2017 Apr

Recent Activity

• Health Services Research: Scope and Significance - Patient Safety and Quality Health Services Research: Scope and Significance - Patient Safety and Quality

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

[ORGANIZATION OF MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDREN WITH A NEW CORONAVIRUS INFECTION IN PATIENT CONDITIONS ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE CHILDREN'S CITY CLINICAL HOSPITAL NAMED AFTER Z. A. BASHLYAEVA]

Affiliations.

• 1 Children's City Clinical Hospital named after Z. A. Bashlyaeva of the Moscow City Health Department, 125373, Moscow, Russian Federation.
• 2 Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, 117997, Moscow, Russian Federation.
• 3 Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 125993, Moscow, Russian Federation.
• 4 Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, 117997, Moscow, Russian Federation, [email protected].
• 5 Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Healthcare Department, 115088, Moscow, Russian Federation.
• PMID: 34792888
• DOI: 10.32687/0869-866X-2021-29-s2-1343-1349

The article presents an analysis of the work of the largest children's COVID-19 center in Moscow, organized on the basis of the Children's City Clinical Hospital named after Z. A. Bashlyaeva of the Moscow City Health Department. From March to November 2020 at the COVID-19 Center were hospitalized 2,837 patients with suspected/confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, in total in 2020 1,876 children with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were treated, 58 (3%) children were in serious condition in the intensive care unit, of which children 11-18 years old were 25%. At the 2020 neonatal COVID-19 center, 215 newborns were observed with suspected COVID-19 diagnosis. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in 18 children, while 8 newborns came from the home of COVID-19. In the Center for rehabilitation, where children aged 0 to 3 years old who were born with very low and extremely low body weight are observed, dispensary observation for children who have undergone COVID-19 is organized. 45 children who were observed fell ill with the new coronavirus infection. There were no deaths among children with COVID-19.

Keywords: COVID-19; COVID-center; children; new coronavirus infection; newborns; treatment.

• COVID-19 Testing*
• Child, Preschool
• Hospitals, Pediatric
• Infant, Newborn
• Retrospective Studies

Status message

Moscow office.

1350 Troy Highway Moscow , ID 83843 United States

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Mental health care is hard to find, especially for people with Medicare or Medicaid

Rhitu Chatterjee

With rates of suicide and opioid deaths rising in the past decade and children's mental health declared a national emergency , the United States faces an unprecedented mental health crisis. But access to mental health care for a significant portion of Americans — including some of the most vulnerable populations — is extremely limited, according to a new government report released Wednesday.

The report, from the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, finds that Medicare and Medicaid have a dire shortage of mental health care providers.

The report looked at 20 counties with people on Medicaid, traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, which together serve more than 130 million enrollees — more than 40% of the U.S. population, says Meridith Seife , the deputy regional inspector general and the lead author of the report.

Medicaid serves people on low incomes, and Medicare is mainly for people 65 years or older and those who are younger with chronic disabilities.

The report found fewer than five active mental health care providers for every 1,000 enrollees. On average, Medicare Advantage has 4.7 providers per 1,000 enrollees, whereas traditional Medicare has 2.9 providers and Medicaid has 3.1 providers for the same number of enrollees. Some counties fare even worse, with not even a single provider for every 1,000 enrollees.

"When you have so few providers available to see this many enrollees, patients start running into significant problems finding care," says Seife.

The findings are especially troubling given the level of need for mental health care in this population, she says.

"On Medicare, you have 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees who are living with a mental illness," she says. "Yet less than half of those people are receiving treatment."

Among people on Medicaid, 1 in 3 have a mental illness, and 1 in 5 have a substance use disorder. "So the need is tremendous."

The results are "scary" but "not very surprising," says Deborah Steinberg , senior health policy attorney at the nonprofit Legal Action Center. "We know that people in Medicare and Medicaid are often underserved populations, and this is especially true for mental health and substance use disorder care."

Among those individuals able to find and connect with a provider, many see their provider several times a year, according to the report. And many have to drive a long way for their appointments.

"We have roughly 1 in 4 patients that had to travel more than an hour to their appointments, and 1 in 10 had to travel more than an hour and a half each way," notes Seife. Some patients traveled two hours each way for mental health care, she says.

Mental illnesses and substance use disorders are chronic conditions that people need ongoing care for, says Steinberg. "And when they have to travel an hour, more than an hour, for an appointment throughout the year, that becomes unreasonable. It becomes untenable."

"We know that behavioral health workforce shortages are widespread," says Heather Saunders , a senior research manager on the Medicaid team at KFF, the health policy research organization. "This is across all payers, all populations, with about half of the U.S. population living in a workforce shortage."

But as the report found, that's not the whole story for Medicare and Medicaid. Only about a third of mental health care providers in the counties studied see Medicare and Medicaid patients. That means a majority of the workforce doesn't participate in these programs.

This has been well documented in Medicaid, notes Saunders. "Only a fraction" of providers in provider directories see Medicaid patients, she says. "And when they do see Medicaid patients, they often only see a few."

Lower reimbursement rates and a high administrative burden prevent more providers from participating in Medicaid and Medicare, the report notes.

"In the Medicare program, they set a physician fee rate," explains Steinberg. "Then for certain providers, which includes clinical social workers, mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists, they get reimbursed at 75% of that rate."

Medicaid reimbursements for psychiatric services are even lower when compared with Medicare , says Ellen Weber , senior vice president for health initiatives at the Legal Action Center.

"They're baking in those discriminatory standards when they are setting those rates," says Steinberg.

The new report recommends that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) take steps to increase payments to providers and lower administrative requirements. In a statement, CMS said it has responded to those recommendations within the report.

According to research by Saunders and her colleagues at KFF, many states have already started to take action on these fronts to improve participation in Medicaid.

Several have upped their payments to mental health providers. "But the scale of those increases ranged widely across states," says Saunders, "with some states limiting the increase to one provider type or one type of service, but other states having rate increases that were more across the board."

Some states have also tried to simplify and streamline paperwork, she adds. "Making it less complex, making it easier to understand," says Saunders.

But it's too soon to know whether those efforts have made a significant impact on improving access to providers.

CMS has also taken steps to address provider shortages, says Steinberg.

"CMS has tried to increase some of the reimbursement rates without actually fixing that structural problem," says Steinberg. "Trying to add a little bit here and there, but it's not enough, especially when they're only adding a percent to the total rate. It's a really small increase."

The agency has also started covering treatments and providers it didn't use to cover before.

"In 2020, Medicare started covering opioid treatment programs, which is where a lot of folks can go to get medications for their substance use disorder," says Steinberg.

And starting this year, Medicare also covers "mental health counselors, which includes addiction counselors, as well as marriage and family therapists," she adds.

While noteworthy and important, a lot more needs to be done, says Steinberg. "For example, in the substance use disorder space, a lot of addiction counselors do not have a master's degree. And that's one of their requirements to be a counselor in the Medicare program right now."

Removing those stringent requirements and adding other kinds of providers, like peer support specialists, is key to improving access. And the cost of not accessing care is high, she adds.

"Over the past two decades, [in] the older adult population, the number of overdose deaths has increased fourfold — quadrupled," says Steinberg. "So this is affecting people. It is causing deaths. It is causing people to go to the hospital. It increases [health care] costs."

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
• mental health

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

What are the key findings of the NHS gender identity review?

Report by Dr Hilary Cass finds young people being let down by lack of research and evidence on medical interventions

• Thousands of children ‘let down by NHS’
• Review has major implications for mental health services

A review into the NHS’s gender identity services has found that children and young people have been let down by a lack of research and evidence on medical interventions in a debate that has become exceptionally toxic.

Dr Hilary Cass said her report was not about defining “what it means to be trans” or “undermining the validity of trans identities”, but about “how best to help the growing number of children and young people who are looking for support from the NHS in relation to their gender identity”. Here are the review’s key findings.

The evidence

“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence,” Cass writes in the foreword to her 398-page report.

Despite that, she adds: “Results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”

When Cass began her inquiry in 2020, the evidence base, especially about puberty blockers and masculinising and feminising cross-sex hormones was “weak”. That was exacerbated by the existence of “a lot of misinformation, easily accessible online, with opposing sides of the debate pointing to research to justify a position, regardless of the quality of the studies.”

Cass commissioned the University of York to undertake systematic reviews of the evidence on key issues, such as puberty blockers. It found that “there continues to be a lack of high-quality evidence in this area”. York academics, as part of their research, tried to document the outcomes seen among the 9,000 young people who the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust’s gender identity development service (Gids) treated between 2009-2020. However, it was “thwarted by a lack of cooperation from [six of England’s seven NHS] adult gender services”.

The new NHS services for these young people must routinely collect evidence of what treatments work, and learn from them to improve clinical practice, the report states.

Cass acknowledges that the discussion around how to care for such young people is polarised, both among health professionals and in wider society. For example, some clinicians believe that most people who present to gender services “will go on to have a long-term trans identity and should be supported to access a medical pathway at an early stage”.

“Others feel that we are medicalising children and young people whose multiple other difficulties are manifesting through gender confusion and gender-related distress. The toxicity of the debate is exceptional,” the report says.

Cass has been criticised for talking both to groups who support gender affirmation – the medical approach – and also those who believe greater caution is needed. Some experienced doctors who have offered different viewpoints have been “dismissed and invalidated”, she says.

“There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop.”

The toxicity of debate has made some clinicians fearful of working with these young people.

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust

When its Gids service was set up in 1989, it saw fewer than 10 children a year, mainly birth-registered males who had not reached puberty. Most received therapy and only a few hormones from the age of 16.

But in 2011 the UK began trialling the use of puberty blockers, as a result of the emergence of “the Dutch protocol”, which involved using them from early puberty. However, a study undertaken in 2015-16, although not published until 2020, shows “a lack of any positive measurable outcomes”.

“Despite this, from 2014 puberty blockers moved from a research-only protocol to being available in routine clinical practice.” This “adoption of a treatment with uncertain benefits without further scrutiny” helped increase the demand among patients for them, the report finds.

An NHS England review in 2019, which examined the evidence on medical intervention and found evidence of its effectiveness to be “weak”, led to Cass being asked to undertake her review.

Changing patient profile

Referral rates to Gids have rocketed since 2014, but there has also been a shift in the profile of those using services. For centuries transgender people have been predominantly trans females who present in adulthood. Now the vast majority are teenagers who were registered as female at birth.

An audit of discharge notes of Gids patients between 1 April 2018 and 31 December 2022 showed the youngest patient was three, the oldest 18, and 73% were birth-registered females, according to the review, which tries to discover why things have changed so dramatically.

One area it explores is the deterioration in mental health among young people, and the links with social media, which have brought pressures to bear on them that no previous generation has experienced.

“The increase in presentations to gender clinics has to some degree paralleled this deterioration in child and adolescent mental health,” the review says. “Mental health problems have risen in both boys and girls, but have been most striking in girls and young women.”

Youngsters who present with gender identity issues to services may also have depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, tics and eating disorders, as well as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Referrals to Gids are also associated with higher than average rates of adverse childhood experiences, the review says.

“There is no single explanation for the increase in prevalence of gender incongruence or the change in case-mix of those being referred to gender services,” the review says, concluding instead that gender incongruence is a result of “a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors”.

Transitioning

Young people’s sense of their identity is not always fixed and can evolve over time, Cass says.

“Whilst some young people may feel an urgency to transition, young adults looking back at their younger selves would often advise slowing down,” the report says.

“For some, the best outcome will be transition, whereas others may resolve their distress in other ways. Some may transition and then de/retransition and/or experience regret. The NHS needs to care for all those seeking support.”

Social transitioning

Social transitioning is the process by which individuals make social changes in order to live as a different gender, such as changing name, pronouns, hair or clothing, and it is something that schools in England have been grappling with in recent years.

According to the Cass review, many children and young people attending Gids have already changed their names by deed-poll and attend school in their chosen gender by the time they are seen.

The review says research on the impact of social transition is generally of a poor quality and the findings are contradictory. Some studies suggest that allowing a child to socially transition may improve mental health and social and educational participation.

Others say a child who is allowed to socially transition is more likely to have an altered trajectory, leading to medical intervention, which will have life-long implications, when they might otherwise have desisted.

“Given the weakness of the research in this area there remain many unknowns about the impact of social transition,” the review concludes. “In particular, it is unclear whether it alters the trajectory of gender development, and what short- and longer-term impact this may have on mental health.”

The review recommends that parents should be involved in decision making, unless there are strong grounds to believe this may put a child at risk, and where children are pre-puberty, families should be seen as early as possible by a clinician with relevant experience. It also suggests avoiding premature decisions and considering partial rather than full transitioning as a way of keeping options open.

Future care

The report says that in the future any young person seeking NHS help with gender-related distress should be screened to see if they have any neurodevelopmental conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder, and also given a mental health assessment.

NHS England has already in effect banned the use of puberty blockers because of limited evidence that they work. Cass found that there is “no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think”, which their advocates have claimed. There is also “concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development” as well as pose long-term risks to users’ bone health, the review says.

There is also a lack of evidence to prove that masculinising and feminising hormones improve a young person’s body satisfaction and psychosocial health, and there is concern over the impact on fertility, growth and bone health. There is also no evidence they reduce the risk of suicide in children, as their proponents have claimed.

Lastly, the evidence base showing whether psychosocial interventions – therapy – work for those who do not undergo hormone treatment is “as weak” as for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

All this means that there is “a major gap in our knowledge about how best to support and help the growing population of young people with gender-related distress in the context of complex presentations”.

• Transgender
• Young people

More on this story

Cass review must be used as ‘watershed moment’ for NHS gender services, says Streeting

‘This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research

Five thousand children with gender-related distress awaiting NHS care in England

Ban on children’s puberty blockers to be enforced in private sector in England

What Cass review says about surge in children seeking gender services

Adult transgender clinics in England face inquiry into patient care

‘Children are being used as a football’: Hilary Cass on her review of gender identity services

Thousands of children unsure of gender identity ‘let down by NHS’, report finds

Review of gender services has major implications for mental health services

Mother criticises ‘agenda from above’ after release of Cass report

Most viewed.

University of Utah Hospital

General questions.

• Billing & Insurance

• Health Care Home
• Press Releases

University of Utah announces major funding for new addiction treatment research

Media contact:.

Patricia Brandt Manager, Public Relations and Communications, Huntsman Mental Health Institute University of Utah Health Email: Patricia.Brandt @hsc.utah.edu

Salt Lake City (April 10, 2024) - Worldwide, someone dies from drug or alcohol addiction every four minutes. Now, researchers at Huntsman Mental Health Institute at the University of Utah have been selected by Wellcome Leap to research a new treatment for substance use disorder as part of a $50 million commitment to develop innovative treatments.

Brian J. Mickey, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Huntsman Mental Health Institute (pictured top left), will lead the team of investigators with expertise in psychiatry, biomedical engineering, neuroscience, radiology, and social work to research a new, noninvasive treatment for addiction. Co-principal investigators include Jan Kubanek, PhD , (pictured top center), and Taylor Webb, PhD (pictured top right); co-investigators include (from left to right) Eric Garland, PhD, LCSW ; Rana Jawish, MD ; Vincent Koppelmans, PhD ; and Tom Riis, PhD.

The research will be funded by the Untangling Addiction program, which is a $50 million program founded by Wellcome Leap , to develop scalable measures to assess addiction susceptibility, quantify the risks stemming from addiction, and develop innovative treatments.  

“Substance use disorder is a significant global health problem, and yet the treatment options are limited,” Mickey said.  “We’re developing a non-invasive intervention for preventing and treating addiction, chronic pain, and depression. This funding will help us validate and generate the data to support the next critical step: an efficacy trial to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.”

Mickey’s team will use a novel ultrasound-based device to modulate deep brain regions and behaviors associated with opioid addiction. The goal will be to ultimately develop this approach into an individually targeted therapeutic intervention for a range of addictions. “Addictions are brain illnesses that have enormous negative impact on individuals, families, and society,” Mickey said. “A major reason that addictions have been difficult to prevent—and treat—is that they are driven by dysfunction of deep brain regions that are challenging to access. Many psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety, and addiction are caused by malfunction of brain circuits. This project is an example of our mission to understand how these neural circuits are dysregulated and to develop novel, circuit-targeted interventions that return the brain to a healthy state.”

"We are proud to bring Wellcome Leap's innovative problem-solving and funding approach to our research enterprise at the University of Utah," said Taylor Randall, President , University of Utah. "To have our mental health researchers contributing to pioneering work on addiction treatment reaffirms our commitment to improving lives through discovery."

“What makes research like this so impactful is that it brings together a variety of disciplines to help solve complex problems in mental health,” said Mark Hyman Rapaport, MD , CEO of Huntsman Mental Health Institute. “This is particularly timely news given the groundbreaking of a new translational research building on campus focused on mental health and the brain. Our nation is in a mental health crisis, but there is hope if we can think differently and work together to change this trajectory.”

About Huntsman Mental Health Institute

Huntsman Mental Health Institute at University of Utah Health brings together 75 years of patient care, research, and education into one of the nation's leading academic medical centers focused on mental health. Nestled in the campus of University of Utah, Huntsman Mental Health Institute serves the community with 1,600 faculty and staff in 20 locations providing inpatient and outpatient services for youth, teens, and adults as well as a comprehensive crisis care model which includes the nationally recognized SafeUT app and the 988 Crisis hotline for Utah. Our mission is to advance mental health knowledge, hope, and healing for all. Learn more at:  HMHI.utah.edu  and join the conversation on  Instagram ,  Facebook ,  TikTok ,  X  and  LinkedIn .

• huntsman mental health institute

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

During Second Chance Month, HRSA Takes Policy Action, Releases First-Ever Funding Opportunity for Health Centers to Support Transitions in Care for People Leaving Incarceration

Latest policy makes clear HRSA-funded Health Centers can provide health care services – including chronic disease, mental health, and substance use disorder treatment – to individuals in the 90 days prior to release from incarceration as they get ready and return to the community

New funding opportunity makes $51 million available to support transitions in care prior to release from incarceration for the first time in the program’s history

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), took new policy action and announced the availability of $51 million for the first-ever funding opportunity for HRSA-funded health centers to implement innovative approaches to support transitions in care for people leaving incarceration. Aligned with the White House Second Chance Initiative , today’s action, for the first time, explicitly supports the provision of health services to individuals during the 90 days prior to their release to help them return to the community by expanding access to primary health care, including mental health and substance use disorder treatment, furthering public health and strengthening public safety.

HRSA-funded health centers provide primary care regardless of ability to pay and are a cornerstone of our country’s health care system, especially for individuals and families who are uninsured; enrolled in Medicaid; living in rural, remote, or underserved areas; struggling to afford their health insurance co-pays; experiencing homelessness; residing in public housing; or otherwise having difficulty finding a doctor or paying for the cost of care. The 1,400 HRSA-funded health centers operate more than 15,000 service sites, providing care for more than 30 million patients.

“As President Biden has often said, America is a nation of second chances. People reentering the community after incarceration deserve a fair shot at living long, healthy lives and contributing to their communities,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “HRSA-funded health centers are well positioned to facilitate these transitions from incarceration to high quality, community-based primary care.”

“At HRSA, we know that poor care transitions as people leave prisons and jails can have devasting consequences,” said HRSA Administrator Carole Johnson. “People returning from incarceration – particularly those with substance use or mental health conditions – often have significant health care needs and are particularly vulnerable to overdose deaths and other bad health outcomes.  Yet, they struggle to get connected to the health services.  That is why we are launching this innovative HRSA effort during Second Chance Month and aim to tackle these needs head-on and ensure better care and better health outcomes for people reentering their communities after incarceration.”

HRSA’s updated policy makes clear that health centers can provide health services to incarcerated individuals who are expected to be or are scheduled for release from a carceral setting within 90 days to help ensure continuity of care as people move home to the community.

As many as 80% of individuals returning to the community after incarceration have chronic medical, psychiatric, and/or substance use conditions. Studies have shown a dramatic and concerning increase in risk for opioid overdose after release from incarceration, with one study showing the risk of death at least ten times higher than for the general public. Nearly half of individuals entering incarceration meet the criteria for having a substance use disorder, and many of these individuals struggle to access and afford medication-assisted and other substance use disorder treatments following release.

Individuals returning to the community also become disconnected from critical medications and treatment for diabetes and hypertension – among the leading causes of death in the United States. They also face disproportionate risks of bad health outcomes overall because they lack connections to services and supports to navigate the process of applying for or reinstating health insurance eligibility and other benefits in the immediate period after their release.

For this competitive funding opportunity, approximately 51 health centers will implement approaches that focus on:

• Reducing drug overdose risk
• Addressing mental health and substance use disorder treatment needs
• Managing chronic conditions
• Preventing, screening, diagnosing, and treating hepatitis C, HIV, syphilis, and other infectious diseases

Health centers can also use funds made available through the funding opportunity to provide case management services that address key social drivers of health, such as housing and food insecurity, financial strain, access to transportation, and intimate partner violence. Facilitating the successful reentry of individuals returning to the community will enhance public health and safety.

This work builds on previous action taken across the Department to support justice-involved individuals and complements efforts from SAMHSA and other federal entities that provide grant funds to expand substance use disorder treatment and related recovery and reentry services to adults. A new Medicaid 1115 waiver opportunity, for example, empowers states to provide justice-involved individuals with Medicaid coverage in the period immediately prior to their release to address various health concerns, including substance use disorders and other chronic health issues. Additionally, the HHS Roadmap for Behavioral Health Integration emphasizes engaging populations at highest risk, including individuals who are justice-involved.

Applications are due in Grants.gov on June 10, 2024, and in  HRSA Electronic Handbooks  on July 2, 2024.

Visit the Health Center Program webpage for more information about this funding opportunity.

Find a health center:  https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov .

Sign Up for Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary, Blogs, and News Releases

Subscribe to RSS

Receive latest updates

Related News Releases

Fact sheet: the biden-harris administration urges congress to lower drug costs for americans with commercial insurance, hhs, doj, and ftc issue request for public input as part of inquiry into impacts of corporate ownership trend in health care, hhs secretary xavier becerra tours new england, announces $100 million investment in women’s healthcare alongside the first lady, related blog posts.

Upholding Research Integrity at HHS

Media inquiries.

For general media inquiries, please contact  [email protected] .