Community health centers (CHCs) are the backbone of primary care for 29 million people, the majority of whom are low-income, underserved, and rural populations. CHCs have their roots in the War on Poverty movement of the 1960s and were built on the premise that health and community are intertwined and inexorably linked.1 Federally qualified health centers receive federal grants through Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act to offset the costs of uninsured and underinsured patients and provide nonclinical services that are critical to the health of individuals and their communities. These nonclinical “enabling” services include patient and community outreach, health education, case management, transportation, interpreter services, and legal services.2 Given the complex needs of CHC patients, demand for enabling services often exceeds available resources at the CHC site.
Some CHCs include community health workers (CHWs) in their enabling services workforce. The “CHW” term encompasses a variety of roles and staffing classifications (eg, outreach workers, promotores, community health representatives, or patient navigators), but refers to lay members of the community who share similar cultural and experiential backgrounds with underserved patients, providing a vital link between community residents and health and social supports.3 The CHW workforce is largely comprised of women and persons of color.4,5 Their cultural and linguistic concordance with patients has been shown to be a factor in successful CHW-related interventions.6
The use of CHWs to address chronic disease management has been studied extensively in community-based and health care settings, including CHCs.7,8 A systematic review of CHWs to improve outcomes among CHC patients with cancer found positive results in all 24 studies included in the review.9 The use of lay health workers at a CHC was associated with better mammography screening outcomes compared with the usual source of care in a randomized controlled trial of African American patients.10 Increased screening for colorectal cancer was also seen in CHC populations,11,12 with 1 pilot randomized controlled trial finding that patients with navigators were 4 times more likely to be screened for colonoscopy than the non-navigator group.13 However, similar studies at other CHCs did not see improvements compared with customary care.14,15 Several studies of CHC-related interventions for cardiovascular disease showed improvements in standard metrics such as decreased cholesterol levels, triglycerides, and other markers,16 improved blood pressure, eating habits, and exercise among Hispanic women,17 lower glycated hemoglobin levels among African American and Latino patients,18 immigrant and ethnic minorities,19 and patients in rural CHCs.20 No differences in outcomes between CHW and non-CHW care were seen in other studies of diabetes care among Latino adults21 or with patients with depression at 2 health centers.22
The number of CHWs employed at health centers has likely grown since 2013 with the requirement from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for each CHC to add at least 1 new outreach and enrollment staff position to help patients navigate Medicaid and marketplace coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Funding for the outreach and enrollment staff eventually became part of the CHC’s federal grant, and some portion of these workers transitioned to other types of community outreach and CHW services.23 For many CHCs, however, funding to support CHW positions is a chronic challenge. CHW services are commonly supported by grants from philanthropic or governmental organizations that offer opportunities to develop and grow CHC capacity but lack long-term sustainability.24 Nevertheless, CHW use is common in managed care. A 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation survey of Medicaid managed care organizations found that 67% of plans used CHWs to address social determinants of health in the previous 12 months.25 While CHWs have traditionally not been reimbursed by public and private insurers, a growing number of states are using funding mechanisms such as Medicaid State Plan Amendments, Section 1115 Demonstration Waivers, and legislative statutes to reimburse for CHW services.
Until 2016, CHCs reported CHW staffing as part of their overall enabling services workforce, making analyses of CHW use and growth over time infeasible with available data sources. This changed in 2016 with separate reporting of CHWs in the annual Uniform Data System (UDS), the principal mechanism used to track CHC operations and performance. This study uses data from UDS from 2016 to 2018 to quantify overall CHW staffing in CHCs and identify CHC characteristics associated with CHW use. Given the change in classification of CHW employment, it also estimates the extent to which increases in CHW workforce are attributable to real growth or rather are a consequence of a change in the reporting category.
Data and Study Population
Our data source was the 2016–2018 UDS, collected and maintained by the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) under HRSA. Each year CHCs that receive funding from Section 330 under the Public Health Service Act report grantee-level information to the system, including staffing, service utilization, patient profiles, quality outcomes, and finances. We limited our sample to CHCs located in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A total of 4102 CHC-year (pooled) observations—1367 CHCs in 2016, 1373 CHCs in 2017, and 1362 CHCs in 2018—were included in the analysis.
The outcome of interest was the newly added CHW full-time equivalents (FTEs) variable. We documented the change in the CHW workforce from 2016 to 2018 in the postreporting change period and factors associated with the use of CHWs. Report staff into the CHW workforce include all individuals who are a part of the regular workforce (full-time and part-time staff). Due to limitations of UDS reporting, we were unable to include volunteer CHWs. We identified possibly important factors associated with the use of CHWs raised in the previous literature. Patient characteristics included race/ethnicity (% White non-Hispanic),26 insurance type (% Medicaid),26,27 sex (% female),26 and special population (% limited English proficiency, % human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis, and % substance use disorder).26,28,29 We included CHC characteristics such as volume (total patient visits),26,30 and geographic location (whether or not located in a rural area or a state with an approved DSRIP program).26,31 We also assessed the relationship between the use of CHWs and variations in the CHC funding environment,26–28,32 by exploring whether CHCs’ financial reliance on BPHC grants (% BPHC grants over total revenue) or foundation/private grants (% foundation/private grants over total revenue) promoted use of CHWs.
We first conducted a descriptive analysis on changes in the CHW workforce among CHCs from 2016 to 2018 and factors associated with the use of CHWs. We used the two-part model because the outcome variable of interest (CHW FTEs) had a large fraction of true zeros (75.77%), while the remaining values were positive and continuous.33 The two-part model allowed estimating separate effects for the probability of using any CHW and extent of CHW FTEs reported in those CHCs. A change in a covariate has 2 effects on the dependent variable—one on the probability that the dependent variable is positive, and the other on the value of the dependent variable conditional on being positive. In the first part, a logistic regression model predicted whether CHCs used any CHW using the entire sample (4102 CHC-year observations); in the second part, an ordinary least squares model predicted CHW FTEs, conditional on any CHW, for the subsample with positive values (994 CHC-year observations). Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effects using the entire sample (4102 CHC-year observations) were calculated. To test the significance of marginal effects for the combined model, the delta-method for approximating the SEs of the average marginal effects was used.34 We included year dummies to control for unobserved time trends. Robust SEs were also used to account for nonindependence of observations from the same facility in all regressions.
Further, as an extension, to alleviate concerns that the changes in CHW workforce might be a consequence of the reporting change, we conducted a difference-in-differences (DD) analysis to compare non-CHW enabling services FTEs between CHCs with and without CHWs before (2013–2015) and after (2016–2018) the reporting change. Other enabling service personnel included case managers, patient/community education specialists, outreach workers, transportation staff, eligibility assistance workers, interpretation staff, and unspecified enabling services workers. We used the non-CHW enabling services FTEs as the outcome. CHCs that reported use of CHWs since 2016 were the treated CHCs, and other CHCs served as the comparison CHCs. The DD regression controlled for CHC fixed effects, year fixed effects, and the same time-varying control variables included in the main analysis. The DD model does rely on the assumption that CHCs with and without CHWs would exhibit similar trends before the reporting change. To test the validity of this assumption, we tested whether trends in non-CHW enabling services FTEs before the reporting change were the same for CHCs with and without CHWs using multiple t-tests and found that there were no significant differences in trends between CHCs with and without CHWs before the reporting change. Detailed regression results of the DD model are available in Supplemental Digital Content 1 (https://links.lww.com/MLR/C300).
This study was ruled exempt by George Washington University’s Institutional Review Board. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 15.
Use of Community Health Workers in Community Health Centers, 2016–2018
From 2016 to 2018, there were substantial increases in the proportion of CHCs that reported use of CHWs (Fig. 1). The rate of CHCs that employed any CHW rose from 20.04% in 2016 to 28.34% in 2018 (an average growth rate of 41%). Over the same time period, the average CHW FTEs employed in those CHCs were 3.32 (SD=4.33).
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for key covariates, separated into CHCs with and without CHWs. Compared to CHCs without CHWs, CHCs that reported use of CHWs since 2016 tended to serve Black (20.95% vs. 18.17%), Hispanic (30.11% vs. 25.62%), and Medicaid (46.84% vs. 42.63%) patients, as well as patients with special needs such as limited English proficiency (23.10% vs. 17.57%), human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis (7.37% vs. 5.04%), and substance use disorder (3.09% vs. 2.25%). CHCs with CHWs were larger in patient visit volume, serving an average of 109,000 visits per year over the study period, as compared with 71,000 for CHCs without CHWs. The reliance on BPHC grants over total revenue was lower for CHCs with CHWs (61.01% vs. 70.59%), while reliance on foundation/private grants was higher for CHCs with CHWs (9.98% vs. 6.76%). In addition, CHCs with CHWs tended to be located in urban areas and in states with an approved DSRIP program. A majority of differences between CHCs with and without CHWs on each set of characteristics was significant with a P-value <0.001.
TABLE 1 -
Mean Characteristics of CHCs in the Study, 2016–2018
||CHCs With Any CHW
||CHCs With No CHW
| % White non-Hispanic
| % Black non-Hispanic
| % Hispanic
| Insurance type
| % No insurance
| % Medicaid
| % Dually eligible
| % Medicare
| % Private insurance
| % Female
| % Limited English proficiency
| Special population
| % HIV diagnosis
| % Substance use disorder
| Total visits (in 1000)
| Grants over total revenue
| % BPHC grants
| % Foundation/private grants
| State with DSRIP program approved
BPHC indicates Bureau of Primary Health Care; CHC, community health center; CHW, community health worker; DSRIP, Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus.
*P-value based on t test.
Factors Associated With the Use of Community Health Workers in Community Health Centers
Table 2 presents factors associated with the use of CHWs from the two-part regression results. Again, a change in a covariate has 2 effects on the dependent variable. Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effects are presented in the far right-hand side column of Table 2.
TABLE 2 -
Factors Associated With the Use of CHWs in CHCs: A Two-Part Model
||Part I: Logistic Regression (N=4102)
||Part II: Linear Regression Conditional on Any CHW (N=994)
||Combined Expected Values (N=4102)
||OR (95% CI)
| % White non-Hispanic
||0.998 (0.993, 1.004)
| % Medicaid
||1.001 (0.994, 1.007)
| % Female
||0.994 (0.990, 0.999)
| % Limited English proficiency
||1.006 (0.999, 1.012)
| % HIV diagnosis
||1.006 (0.993, 1.018)
| % Substance use disorder
||1.031 (1.009, 1.053)
| Total visits (in 1000)
||1.002 (1.000, 1.003)
| % BPHC grants
||0.992 (0.987, 0.998)
| % Foundation/private grants
||1.011 (1.000, 1.021)
||0.695 (0.521, 0.925)
| State with DSRIP program approved
||0.858 (0.652, 1.127)
||1.370 (1.217, 1.541)
||1.737 (1.500, 2.012)
In the first part, a logistic regression model predicted whether CHCs used any CHW using the entire sample (4102 CHC-year observations); in the second part, an ordinary least squares model predicted CHW FTEs, conditional on any CHW, for the subsample with positive values (994 CHC-year observations). Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effects using the entire sample (4102 CHC-year observations) were calculated. Robust SEs were used to account for nonindependence of observations from the same facility in the first and second parts. To test the significance of marginal effects for the combined model, the delta-method for approximating the SEs of the average marginal effects was used.
AME indicates average marginal effect; BPHC, Bureau of Primary Health Care; CHC, community health center; CHW, community health worker; CI, confidence interval; DSRIP, Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; OR, odds ratio.
For example, CHCs serving 1000 more visits per year were 1.002 times more likely to have any CHW (P=0.027); and the CHW FTEs, conditional on any CHW, increased by 0.010 (P=0.002). Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effect of this variable was an increase in the CHW FTEs of 0.003 (P<0.001) compared with CHCs without CHWs. Besides the volume, CHCs’ financial reliance on federal and other grants appears to be an important determinant. A 1 percentage point more reliance on BPHC grants was 0.992 times less likely to have any CHW (P=0.006); and the CHW FTEs, conditional on any CHW, decreased by 0.012 (P=0.209). Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effect of this variable was a decrease in the CHW FTEs of 0.007 (P=0.012) compared with CHCs without CHWs. On the contrary, CHCs’ financial reliance on foundation/private grants promoted the use of CHWs. A 1 percentage point more reliance on foundation/private grants was 1.011 times more likely to have any CHW (P=0.041); and the CHW FTEs, conditional on any CHW, increased by 0.028 (P=0.155). Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effect of this variable was an increase in the CHW FTEs of 0.012 (P=0.026) compared with CHCs without CHWs. Interestingly, CHCs in rural areas were less likely to employ any CHW (odds ratio=0.695; 95% confidence interval: 0.521, 0.925). However, among CHCs having any CHW, CHCs in rural areas employed more CHWs by 1.665 FTEs than CHCs in urban areas (P=0.006). Combining the 2 parts, the marginal effect of this variable was not statistically significant.
With respect to the effect size, the magnitudes of marginal effects on each of patient and organizational factors were modest in size on average and might not be sufficient to be significant determinants of using CHWs. Instead, year dummies were significantly associated with the 2 parts and the magnitudes of year dummies were also greater than those of patient and organizational factors, which might suggest that the changes in CHW workforce might be a consequence of the reporting change, as explored in the next section.
Use of Other Enabling Services Staff in Community Health Centers
As an extension, we conducted a DD analysis to compare non-CHW enabling services FTEs between CHCs with and without CHWs before and after the reporting change in 2016. The first row in Table 3 reports the summary statistics of non-CHW enabling services staff FTEs using data from 2013 to 2018. The mean number of non-CHW enabling services staff FTEs for CHCs that reported use of CHWs since 2016 was 19.25 (SD=24.70), while the value for CHCs without CHWs was 11.73 (SD=17.56).
TABLE 3 -
Use of Other Enabling Services Staff in CHCs, 2013–2018
||CHCs With Any CHW (Since 2016)
||CHCs With No CHW (Since 2016)
Personnel performing other enabling service activities include case managers, patient/community education specialists, outreach workers, transportation staff, eligibility assistance workers, and interpretation staff. The first row reports the summary statistics (mean and SD) of other enabling services staff FTEs using data from 2013 to 2018. The first column on each panel reports the predicted values of other enabling services staff FTEs over time from the difference-in-differences regression results; and the second column on each panel reports the percent changes. The regression controls for CHC fixed effects, year fixed effects, and the following time-varying control variables: patient characteristics (% White non-Hispanic, % Medicaid, % female, % limited English proficiency, % human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis, and % substance use disorder), CHC characteristics (total visits, % BPHC grants over total revenue, % Foundation/private grants over total revenue, rural location, and whether or not located in a state with DSRIP program approved). Detailed regression results are available in Supplemental Digital Content 1 (https://links.lww.com/MLR/C300
BPHC indicates Bureau of Primary Health Care; CHC, community health center; CHW, community health worker; DSRIP, Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment; FTE, full-time equivalent.
The first column on each panel reports the predicted values of non-CHW enabling services staff FTEs over time from the DD regression results; the second column reports the percent changes. The percent changes in the 2 groups were similar in the year preceding the reporting change, then deviated substantially in 2016 when CHCs began reporting CHW FTE as a separate line item under the category of enabling services FTEs (0.69% vs. 7.49%), suggesting that the changes in CHW workforce might be, in part, a consequence of the reporting change instead of actual growth. The estimate on a DD model also showed a significant decrease in non-CHW enabling services staff FTEs by 0.87 (P=0.045) for CHCs with CHWs after the reporting change in 2016 (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/MLR/C300). This suggests that about one third of the changes in CHW workforce we observed might be a consequence of the reporting change in 2016, compared with a mean of 3.32 FTEs.
This analysis examines the characteristics of CHCs that employ CHWs and the factors that may be associated with their use. We found CHCs reporting CHW FTE grew 41% from 2016 to 2018, while average FTEs stayed relatively flat, with about 4% growth over the same time period. Our analyses indicate that a substantial portion of this growth (about one third) may be attributable to a change in UDS reporting categories.
In our unadjusted models, we find that CHCs with larger in patient visit volume, more diverse patient populations, in urban settings are more likely to employ any CHWs. These factors remained significant after adjusting our models.
CHCs with larger patient visit volumes, which tend to have more resources and are better equipped to apply for grant funding and participate in quality-related initiatives, appear to be in a stronger position to bring CHWs on board. In our adjusted models, larger CHCs were more likely to employ CHWs and, if employed, had more CHW FTE. Grant funding is also an important determinant. Given the challenges of creating a financially sustainable model for CHW staffing, CHCs often turn to external grants to support special initiatives involving CHWs. Conversely, CHCs that depend more heavily on HRSA grants have more limited funding streams to bring CHWs on board. While many CHCs support CHW FTE through enabling services funding, competing priorities for these limited funds can make adding new professions to the enabling services workforce particularly difficult.
Our study uncovers an interesting twist related to CHC geographic location and the use of CHWs. Rural CHCs are less likely to employ CHWs; but if they have CHWs, they employ them more. On average, rural CHCs with CHWs reported 1.665 more FTEs compared with CHW FTEs in urban CHCs. Using more CHWs in rural settings that have already decided to integrate CHWs into their enabling services workforce is a research question that should be explored in future studies.
Our study indicates that the majority of CHCs are not taking advantage of the opportunities that CHWs present for CHC patient populations. In 2018, only 28.3% of health centers reported some CHW FTE. While our study does not address the reasons why health centers have been slow to add CHWs to their enabling services workforce, our results are consistent with prior research that points to substantial financial barriers associated with CHCs’ expanding the use of CHWs in their clinics.8,35 CHCs are resource-strained safety net organizations that face chronic funding challenges among a growing and increasingly complex patient population. Lack of investment in CHWs is a missed opportunity from a quality of care and financial perspective; a 2020 study of a CHW intervention calculated a return of $2.47 for every dollar invested by an average Medicaid payer in the program.26
Our findings indicate that Medicaid coverage is not associated with greater use of CHWs, which should not be surprising since state Medicaid programs have only recently accelerated opportunities to support CHWs (and many other enabling services workers) as part of care team covered services. Medicaid is the largest funder of health center services, with nearly half of health center patients covered by the program.36 Its commitment to integrating CHWs into FHQCs more broadly could greatly expand these services as part of its commitment to a more equitable delivery system. Nearly 7 of 10 heath centers to not employ CHWs, despite growing recognition of the importance of incorporating community-based interventions to reduce disparities among low-income, underserved, diverse populations, which are the mainstay of CHC patients. Policy change—including strengthening Medicaid provisions to explicitly include CHW services as reimbursable under state Medicaid programs would help to expand the use of CHWs across CHCs nationwide.
1. National Association of Community Health Centers. Community health centers past, present, and future: building on 50 years of success; March 2015. Available at: www.rchnfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NACHC-50.pdf
. Accessed August 2, 2020.
2. Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organization. Enabling services: gateways to better care; May 2016. Available at: www.aapcho.org/resources_db/enabling-services-gateways-to-better-care/
. Accessed August 5, 2020.
3. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 42 USC sec. 5001-5701
4. Gates A, Rudowitz R, Guyer J. An overview of Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Waivers; September 29, 2014. Available at: www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/an-overview-of-delivery-system-reform-incentive-payment-waivers/
. Accessed March 14, 2021.
5. Malcarney MB, Pittman P, Quigley L, et al. The changing roles of Community Health Workers. Health Serv Res. 2017;52(suppl 1):360–382.
6. Love MB, Gardner K, Legion V. Community health workers: who they are and what they do. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24:510–522.
7. Hill J, Peer N, Oldenburg B, et al. Roles, responsibilities and characteristics of lay community health workers involved in diabetes prevention programmes: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0189069.
8. US Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions. Community Health Worker National Workforce Study; March 2007. Available at: https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/data-research/community-health-workforce.pdf
. Accessed July 29, 2020.
9. Kim K, Choi JS, Choi E, et al. Effects of community-based health worker interventions to improve chronic disease management and care among vulnerable populations: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:e3–e28.
10. Raphael JL, Rueda A, Lion KC, et al. The role of lay health workers in pediatric chronic disease: a systematic review. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13:408–420.
11. Roland KB, Milliken EL, Rohan EA, et al. Use of Community Health Workers and patient navigators to improve cancer outcomes among patients served by federally qualified health centers: a systematic literature review. Health Equity. 2017;1:61–76.
12. Russell KM, Champion VL, Monahan PO, et al. Randomized trial of a lay health advisor and computer intervention to increase mammography screening in African American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:201–210.
13. Percac-Lima S, Grant RW, Green AR, et al. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:211–217.
14. Christie J, Itzkowitz S, Lihau-Nkanza I, et al. A randomized controlled trial using patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income minorities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008;100:278–284.
15. Jandorf L, Gutierrez Y, Lopez J, et al. Use of a patient navigator to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban neighborhood health clinic. J Urban Health. 2005;82:216–224.
16. West DS, Greene P, Pulley L, et al. Stepped-care, community clinic interventions to promote mammography use among low-income rural African American women. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(suppl):29s–44s.
17. Castañeda SF, Xiong Y, Gallo LC, et al. Colorectal cancer educational intervention targeting latino patients attending a community health center. J Prim Care Community Health. 2012;3:164–169.
18. Allen JK, Himmelfarb CR, Szanton SL, et al. COACH trial: a randomized controlled trial of nurse practitioner/community health worker cardiovascular disease risk reduction in urban community health centers: rationale and design. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:403–411.
19. Hayashi T, Farrell MA, Chaput LA, et al. Lifestyle intervention, behavioral changes, and improvement in cardiovascular risk profiles in the California WISEWOMAN project. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19:1129–1138.
20. Spencer MS, Rosland A-M, Kieffer EC, et al. Effectiveness of a community health worker intervention among African American and Latino adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:2253–2260.
21. Shommu NS, Ahmed S, Rumana N, et al. What is the scope of improving immigrant and ethnic minority healthcare using community navigators: a systematic scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2016;15:6.
22. Kunz S, Ingram M, Piper R, et al. Rural collaborative model for diabetes prevention and management: a case study. Health Promot Pract. 2017;18:798–805.
23. National Association of Community Health Centers. Expanding the role of the enrollment assister at community health centers; April 2017. Available at: www.nachc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017EnrollmentAssister-IssueBrief_FINAL_PUBLIC.pdf
. Accessed February 10, 2021.
24. Lloyd J, Davis R, Moses K. Recognizing and sustaining the value of community health workers and promotores. Center for Health Care Strategies; January 2020. Available at: www.chcs.org/resource/recognizing-and-sustaining-the-value-of-community-health-workers-and-promotores/
. Accessed February 8, 2021.
25. Garfield R, Hinton E, Cornachione E, et al. Medicaid managed care plans and access to care: results from the Kaiser Family Foundation 2017 Survey of Medicaid Managed Care Plans; March 2018. Available at: http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Medicaid-Managed-Care-March-Plans-and-Access-to-Care
. Accessed January 28, 2021.
26. Kangovi S, Mitra N, Grande D, et al. Evidence-based community health worker program addresses unmet social needs and generates positive return on investment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39:207–213.
27. McAlearney JS. The financial performance of community health centers, 1996–1999. Health Aff. 2002;21:219–225.
28. D’Aunno T, Vaughn TE. An organizational analysis of service patterns in outpatient drug abuse treatment units. J Subst Abuse. 1995;7:27–42.
29. Asche SE, Harrison PA. The relationship between problem severity and ancillary treatment services: is substance abuse treatment responsive to client need? J Behav Health Serv Res. 2002;29:345–356.
30. Lewis-Idema D, Wiaczek B, Falik MSB. Enabling Services and Perinatal Care: Final Report. Bethesda, MD: Bureau of Primary Health Care; 1999.
31. Ormond B, Wallin S, Goldenson S. Supporting the Rural Health Care Safety Net. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2000.
32. Beauvais B, Wells R, Vasey J, et al. Finance at the front line. The effects of financial slack on community health center clinical process quality. J Health Care Finance. 2007;34:44–57.
33. Wooldridge JM. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2010.
34. Dowd BE, Greene WH, Norton EC. Computation of standard errors. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:731–750.
35. Sherman M, Covert H, Fox L, et al. Successes and lessons learned from implementing community health worker programs in community-based and clinical settings: insights from the Gulf Coast. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2017;23(suppl 6 suppl, Gulf Region Health Outreach Program):S85–S93.
36. National Association of Community Health Centers. Medicaid and Medicare: what matters for health centers. 2020. Available at: www.nachc.org/focus-areas/policy-matters/medicaid-and-medicare/
. Accessed March 3, 2021.