National Academies Press: OpenBook

Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity (2019)

Chapter: 5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity

« Previous: 4 Fostering Caregiver Well-Being Toward Healthy Child Development
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 299
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 300
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 301
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 302
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 303
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 304
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25466.
×
Page 314

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 Leveraging the Health Care System to Improve Outcomes and Promote Health Equity INTRODUCTION Significant differences in health status among women, infants, and children and inadequate response to the role of early life stressors on life course health indicate a need for an important transformation of the U.S. health care system and its delivery of preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care, which are the focus of this chapter (see Box 5-1 for an overview of the chapter). Changes are urgently needed to better address health disparities, including those by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) (see Chapter 1 for a more detailed discussion of disparities). For example, the most recent statistics on maternal and infant mortality and other birth outcomes (see Box 5-2) highlight significant disparities and also demonstrate the urgency of changes to the health care system to more rapidly and effectively address and reverse concerning trends. As the evidence in this report demonstrates, much chronic disease and disability among adults has origins in infancy and childhood. Furthermore, changing needs of the population, with growing diversity and greater understanding of the health impacts of social determinants of health (SDOH), also signal the need for major changes throughout the health care system. BOX 5-1 Chapter in Brief: Leveraging the Health Care System This chapter discusses opportunities to leverage the health care system in supporting healthy early childhood development, with a focus on improving access to health care services, improving quality of care, improving the organization and financing of care, and transforming the content of health care to address the social, economic, cultural, and environmental determinants of health. The chapter also addresses ways to apply a life course perspective and new knowledge about child development, including the effects of adversity, trauma, and the toxic stress response to address needs, challenges, and strategies for the health care system in the preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood periods at the practice, policy, and systems levels. Chapter conclusions in brief: • The current health care system focuses mainly on clinical goals and addresses the multiple determinants of health in fragmented and highly variable ways. Despite high-quality clinical care, the health status of America’s children and young families is far worse than in comparable developed countries. U.S. health care provides only limited attention to integration of health care for the whole family across the life course, integration of mental and behavioral PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS 5-1

5-2 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS health with the rest of health care, or integration of healthcare within community systems to better support children and families. • Although health insurance coverage has grown substantially in the past few decades, mainly through Medicaid expansions and other insurance enhancements, access remains a problem for many families with young children, who experience numerous barriers to obtaining health care services in addition to lack of health insurance coverage. Further efforts are needed to address financial and nonfinancial barriers to care and to ensure that all families have access to adequate preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care. • Promising strategies can improve quality of preconception, prenatal, and child health care, such as developing and implementing new measures, including for adversity and social determinants, along with efforts to strengthen the training of the health care workforce to better understand diversity and implicit bias and to address equity in health care. • Programs that build on home visiting, referrals to community partners, and integrated community efforts have enhanced outcomes for children and families. New technologies have expanded care and access, increased understanding of the social determinants, and improved communication about health and chronic disease. New payment arrangements can accelerate the transformation of health services to programs to support families and population health. Chapter recommendations in brief: • Increase access to preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric health care. • Expand accountability and improve quality of preconception through pediatric care. • Adopt policies and practices that improve the organization, financing, and integration of care systems from preconception through pediatric care, with a focus on the caregiver and child together as the unit of care and collaboration with community-based services. • Transform preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric health care to address the root causes of poor health and well-being, including social determinants. As detailed in this chapter, the current health care system often delivers limited, episodic, inequitable, and fragmented services. It focuses on clinical medical care, which recognizes the myriad of social factors that affect health outcomes but often addresses such factors in fragmented and variable ways. The health care system serves as one platform, along with public health and other sectors, to address the social determinants that underlie many health inequities. To better address inequities, it is necessary to transform the organization, delivery, and financing of health care to incorporate community-focused teams and integration across multiple sectors to address the SDOH, poverty, mental and behavioral health (MBH), chronic disease, disparities, adversity, and family well-being. Achieving these goals will require assuring access to care, focusing and improving quality of care, changing the organization and financing of health care, and strengthening the content of health care. Based on available evidence and existing resources, the committee identified three domains as important for focusing on preconception, prenatal, and early childhood interventions: health care systems and services (see Chapter 5), healthy living conditions (see Chapter 6), and early care and education (ECE) (see Chapter 7) (see the committee’s conceptual model in Chapter 1, Figure 1-9). This chapter focuses on health care systems and services, including preventive care and clinical care delivery systems, and also emphasizes critical links and opportunities for alignment with other partners in the health care system and in other sectors in the community. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-3 BOX 5-2 Health and Health Services Disparities for Women, Infants, and Children Maternal mortality—Maternal mortality in the United States increased from 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 17.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015 (CDC, 2019c). There are large racial disparities as well—as of 2010, black women were three to four times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related complication than non-Hispanic white women (Creanga et al., 2015). Infant mortality—In 2016, infant mortality rates were 11.4 percent for non-Hispanic black infants, 9.4 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) infants, 7.4 percent for Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander infants, 5.0 percent for Hispanic infants, 4.9 percent for non-Hispanic white infants, and 3.6 percent for Asian infants (CDC, 2019b). Low birth weight—In 2016, LBW rates in the United States were 13.7 percent for non-Hispanic black women and 7.0 percent for non-Hispanic white women (Martin et al., 2018). In the same year, rates among Hispanic subgroups ranged from 9.5 percent for Puerto Rican women to 6.9 percent for Mexican women (Martin et al., 2018). In 2013, rates among Asian and Pacific Islander subgroups were 10.6 percent for Asian Indian women, 9.4 percent for Filipino women, and 5.9 percent for Chinese women (Child Trends, 2015). Preterm birth—In 2016, preterm birth rates were 13.8 percent among non-Hispanic black mothers and 8.63 percent among non-Hispanic Asian mothers. For Hispanic subgroups, rates ranged from 11.0 percent for Puerto Rican mothers to 9.1 percent for Central and South American mothers (Martin et al., 2018). Prenatal care—In 2006, the rate of women who received prenatal care in the first trimester was 58 percent for black and Hispanic women and 76 percent for white women (69 percent of women overall received prenatal care) (Bryant et al., 2010). Health insurance—In 2016, 55.4 percent of black children and 56.8 percent of Hispanic children were covered by public insurance, compared to 31.9 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 26.8 percent of Asian children (Child Trends, n.d.; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). In the same year, black and Hispanic children made up 20 and 37 percent, respectively, of all children covered by Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), yet they were 14 and 25 percent, respectively, of all children (Brooks and Wagnerman, 2018). In 2017, 4.9 percent of black children and 7.7 percent of Hispanic children were uninsured, compared with 4.3 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 4.6 percent of Asian children (Berchick et al., 2018). Health status—In 2011–2012, 5.0 percent of Hispanic children interviewed in Spanish (3.6 percent of Hispanic children interviewed in English) and 3.6 percent of non-Hispanic black children had poor or fair health, compared to 2.7 percent of non-Hispanic white children (Pastor et al., 2015). In addition, children and youth receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for severe disability are disproportionately black and Latino (NASEM, 2015). The health care sector is positioned to play a crucial role in advancing health equity by providing care and services during the preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood periods. Preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care provide a point of entry into the health care system for women and men as well as children, especially those in the first few years of life. However, current health care system organizational fragmentation and the episodic delivery of health care services coupled with institutional and systemic disadvantage have resulted in significant disparities in access to and use of health care services. Health care that is well PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-4 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS organized, accessible over time, high quality, universally available, and effectively integrated for all people could provide continuous access to a wide variety of resources and services and decrease disparities in use of health care services. Given that recognizing risk factors (biological, social, and environmental) as early as possible is fundamental to addressing health inequities, universal access to health care services is a critical component to decreasing and eliminating health inequities (Veugelers and Yip, 2003). Although health care plays an integral role, the health care sector alone cannot meaningfully address health inequities, nor is it the primary actor or leader. Cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration is essential for decreasing health inequities. As discussed in Chapter 1, the United States spends more on health care than any other country yet has some of the worst outcomes and gravest disparities. Despite significant improvements in the last century, troubling trends have persisted and worsened in the current century (e.g., life expectancy has decreased, and maternal mortality rates have increased [see Box 5-2]) (CDC, 2019c; Murphy et al., 2018). Although children and youth represented about 45 percent of the Medicaid population in 2013, they received only about 19 percent of Medicaid expenditures (MACPAC, 2018). In addition, about 95 percent of U.S. spending on health is related to treatment and medical services; only about 5 percent is allocated to population-level health improvement and prevention (McGinnis et al., 2002). The United States spends the highest percentage of GDP on health care services among all nations but has poor health outcomes in many areas, including neonatal and maternal mortality, deaths from injuries, and rates of substance use. Improving health outcomes requires more rapid learning regarding interventions that work and those that do not, focusing investment in effective interventions and their deployment, and more equitable allocation of resources to other sectors outside of health care. As Steuerle and Isaacs (2014) document, federal spending on programs to support children and families has faced immense budgetary pressures as health care spending has increased. The committee embraced the life course approach, which emphasizes the impact of an individual’s experiences throughout a lifetime—and across generations—on health outcomes (see Chapter 3). Given the multigenerational impacts of toxic stress, food and housing instability, chronic disease, and parental ill health on the health of children, all family members need access to health care services across the life course. Thus, this chapter highlights the many ways in which our current system represents a patchwork of services offered at different times in life (e.g., little or no continuity, intermittent insurance coverage, poor access to providers, eligibility for services for short periods of time) and how U.S. health care needs to be redesigned and rebuilt on a firmer foundation of care across the life course with added boosters during life junctures most critical to a child’s health. This chapter covers health care services delivered and received during the preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood periods—junctures at which well-timed services can boost the odds for good health across the life course. This chapter generally focuses on health care provided by physicians, although there are many other practitioners that play an important role in the health care system during these life periods—such as nurses, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, doulas, social workers, specialized therapists, and mental health practitioners. However, given the scope of this report, the committee could not cover all of these in great detail. In addition, there are a number of forthcoming National Academies reports on topics related to this chapter, including the roles of other important practitioners. These includes studies on The Future of Nursing 2020–2030, PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-5 which has a focus on reducing health disparities and producing a culture of health;1 Assessing Health Outcomes by Birth Settings;2 and Integrating Social Needs Care into the Delivery of Health Care to Improve the Nation’s Health.3 Finally, the 2019 National Academies report The Promise of Adolescence: Realizing Opportunity for All Youth (NASEM, 2019) covers topics not included here, such as sexual and reproductive health care for adolescents—including unintended pregnancy. The health care system as a whole is robust and frequently interacts with children and their families by providing a nearly universal touchpoint with all women and children from the prenatal period to age 3, making it an important system through which to address health inequities. However, it is important to note that the health care system is not the main vehicle through which change should occur to address the SDOH, nor is it where additional funds should be funneled to do so. Rather, the health care system needs to be better leveraged to not only provide medical care but also address the SDOH (including barriers to access other than health insurance, such as lack of or inadequate transportation to medical visits, cost-sharing, and lack of culturally competent services) (Woolf, 2019). However, as noted above and described in detail below, the health care system does need to change to more systematically address the upstream causes of poor health and health inequities. To do so, the health care sector needs to engage and partner with other sectors to actively address the SDOH and find common solutions to meet the needs of children and families (see Recommendations 8-1 and 8-5 in Chapter 8 for more on the need for cross-sector approaches and integration of care to advance health equity). This chapter includes an introduction to the history and current content of preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric health care and sections describing efforts to improve access, quality, and innovative delivery/financing of better health care during these critical and sensitive periods of life. As noted above, the life course perspective illustrates that health care from preconception through early childhood is a continuum of care that needs to take place across the life-span and take into account intergenerational effects. Thus, as this chapter discusses, an integrated health care system, which will require addressing a multitude of structural, professional, practical, and cultural barriers, is necessary to accelerate improvement in health care services, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes and decreasing health inequities. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT CHARACTERISTICS OF HEALTH CARE Preconception Care A primary goal of preconception care is to improve the health of men and women during their reproductive years, especially shortly before conceiving a child. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define preconception care as “a set of interventions that aim to 1 For more information, see http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Workforce/futureofnursing2030.aspx (accessed April 5, 2019). 2 For more information, see https://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BCYF/Research_Issues_in_the_Assessment_of_Birth_Settings/index.h tm (accessed April 5, 2019). 3 For more information, see http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/activities/healthservices/integratingsocialneedscareintothedeliveryofhealthcaretoi mprovethenationshealth.aspx (accessed April 5, 2019). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-6 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS identify and modify biomedical, behavioral, and social risks to a woman's health or pregnancy outcome through prevention and management” (Johnson et al., 2006). As discussed in Chapter 2, preconception health is important not only for pregnancy outcomes but also for the lifelong health of children and even the health of the next generation (The Lancet, 2018). Disparities in preconception health can thus set up intergenerational transmission of health disparities. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2013–2015, and Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, 2013–2014, Robbins et al. (2018) found significant disparities in nine preconception health indicators by race-ethnicity, age, and insurance status (see Tables 5-1 and 5-2). They found that among older women (35–44 years), non-Hispanic black women, uninsured women, and those residing in southern states, prevalence estimates of risk factor indicators were generally highest and prevalence estimates of health-promoting indicators were generally lowest. TABLE 5-1: Prevalence of Preconception Health Indicators Among Nonpregnant Reproductive-Aged Women (18–44 years), by Age Group, Race/Ethnicity, and Insurance—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2013–2015 SOURCE: Robbins et al., 2018. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-7 TABLE 5-2: Prevalence of Preconception Health Indicators Among Reproductive-Aged Women (aged 18–44 years) with a Recent Live Birth, by Age Group, Race/Ethnicity, and Insurance—Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, United States, 2013–2014. SOURCE: Robbins et al., 2018. Advancing health equity in birth and child health outcomes begins with reducing preconception health disparities. For decades, preconception care has been proposed as a key population-level strategy for improving birth outcomes. Clinical recommendations have been developed regarding the key components of preconception care, which include addressing primarily undiagnosed, untreated, or poorly controlled medical conditions; immunization history; medication and radiation exposure in early pregnancy; nutritional issues; family history and genetic risk; tobacco and substance use and other high-risk behaviors; occupational and environmental exposures; family planning and reproduction life plan; social issues; and mental health issues (Jack et al., 2008). Men could also benefit from preconception care, although the content of care is less well defined for them (Frey et al., 2008). The evidence base supporting a range of services for preconception care as critical to child health has been well documented and includes folic acid supplementation; appropriate management of hyperglycemia; rubella, influenza, and hepatitis vaccination; low phenylalanine diet; and provision of antiretroviral medications to reduce the risk for mother-to-child HIV transmission (Johnson et al., 2006; Korenbrot et al., 2002). Yet, several recent reviews regarding the most effective health care structures to ensure translating this science into action have found mixed results. Burgess et al. reviewed nine studies and found that fertility intention screening was associated with improved knowledge related to healthier pregnancy but not increased provision of new contraception services for those not desiring pregnancy (Burgess et al., 2018). Lassi et al. (2014) reviewed 161 studies and found evidence of effectiveness for preconception care in improving outcomes for women with diabetes, epilepsy, PKU, and depression. Hemsing et al. (2017) reviewed 29 preconception interventions and found that the majority of interventions offered assessment or screening followed by brief intervention or counseling. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-8 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Overall, these interventions demonstrated improvements in at least some of the outcomes measured (Hemsing et al., 2017). However, several other systematic reviews failed to find conclusive evidence of improved pregnancy outcomes associated with the following types of preconception care: routine prepregnancy health promotion (Whitworth and Dowswell, 2009), genetic risk assessment (Hussein et al., 2018), preconception care for diabetic women (Tieu et al., 2017b), interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes (Tieu et al., 2017a), preconception health and programs for women who are overweight or obese (Opray et al., 2015), preconception lifestyle advice for people with subfertility (Anderson et al., 2010), and preconception care in the primary care setting (Hussein et al., 2016). This could be largely due to a lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or poor study quality, but this may also reflect the limits of preconception care services as they are currently conceived, organized and delivered. Currently, the content of preconception care is too ill-defined and limited, its access is too restricted and episodic, its quality too disparate and inequitable, and its organization and delivery too fragmented and siloed to fully deliver on its promise as an intergenerational equalizer of population health (Verbiest et al., 2016). The timing of preconception care has been identified as a major limitation contributing to the health care system’s failures in achieving optimal delivery of preconception care. Preconception care is commonly regarded as a single prepregnancy checkup a few months before the couple attempts to conceive. The timing of such an approach, however, could miss nearly half of all pregnancies, which are unplanned (Finer and Zolna, 2016), and approximately 37 percent of all births in the United States, which are unintended at the time of conception (Mosher et al., 2012). Moreover, such an approach may be appropriate to address certain risk factors (e.g., folic acid supplementation, low phenylalanine diet, or cessation of certain teratogenic exposures) but may be too late to address others. For example, preconception counseling 3 months before pregnancy may be timely to avoid ingesting methylmercury, which has a half-life of 50 days (CDC, 2016), but too late to reduce the bioaccumulation of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds (DLCs), which have a half-life of 7–8 years (IOM, 2003). DLCs are lipophilic and bioaccumulate in animal fat; hence, IOM recommends that girls and young women drink low-fat or skim milk instead of whole milk and eat foods lower in animal fat years before they become pregnant (IOM, 2003). Switching to low- fat milk and/or a low-fat diet a few months before pregnancy would do little to reduce fetal exposure to DLCs. Furthermore, to expect preconception care to reverse allostatic load (the cumulative physiologic toll from chronic stress) in a single visit may be asking too much. Thus, rather than considering preconception care as a single prepregnancy checkup, it needs to be re- conceptualized, tested and integrated into health care services delivered consistently, continuously, and comprehensively for women (and men) across the life course. Another limit of preconception care, as commonly practiced, is its narrow clinical focus. While its benefits in reducing certain biomedical or behavioral risks (e.g., folate deficiency, PKU, smoking) have been well documented, these are often not the major drivers of disparities in birth and child health outcomes. Preconception care could have a greater impact in advancing health equity if it is better set up to optimize management of chronic conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, that disproportionately affect low-income women and women of color; yet, for many women, the lack of access to and the episodic nature of preconception care limit its effectiveness as a population-wide strategy for advancing equity in preconception health. Preconception care offers an important opportunity for addressing MBH issues, but in many underresourced communities, a positive screen is often not backed up by available referral services, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, alcohol rehabilitation, tobacco PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-9 cessation counseling and referral, substance use treatment, or trauma-informed care (TIC). Most importantly, presently preconception care is ill equipped to address many social determinants of preconception health, such as food insecurity, housing instability, occupational or environmental exposures, or intimate partner violence. This is not a flaw of preconception care per se but of the larger U.S. health care system, which is poorly designed to tackle the SDOH; nonetheless, preconception care represents an important missed opportunity for advancing health equity, with its prevailing narrow focus on fixing biomedical and behavioral risks. The evidence base regarding the effectiveness of preconception care is also limited by the relative dearth of research on what preconception interventions succeed in advancing health equity in birth and child health outcomes. For example, despite increasing recognition of the health impact of maternal allostatic load on not only birth and child health outcomes but also the developmental origins of health and disease, there has been a paucity of intervention research on what can be done during preconception care to reduce maternal allostatic load. Similarly, little is known on how preconception care might reduce the risk of aberrant placentation, epigenetic reprogramming, and neuroendocrine, immune-inflammatory, and metabolic dysregulation, which could contribute to disparities in birth outcomes and lifelong health. Approaches to incorporate reproductive life planning discussions into routine visits for women of child-bearing age—e.g. asking every woman of reproductive age at every routine visit whether she would like to become pregnant at some point and, if so, when that might be (Callegari et al., 2017)—have led to increased delivery of preconception care services prior to pregnancy. However, these strategies have been criticized for focusing too much on reproductive choice and not enough on reproductive justice. The maternalism inherent in the traditional concept of preconception care (as narrowly defined by the current health care system) has been criticized by some for promoting the trope of “women as reproductive vessels” (Waggoner, 2013). Others have argued that preconception care (and contraceptive care) is limited by a primary focus on changing individual behaviors instead of the historical and social contexts of those behaviors and on promoting reproductive choice instead of broader reproductive access, especially for communities of color. This reality gave rise to the Reproductive Justice movement in the 1990s, which focused on a woman’s right to have a child or not to have a child and explicitly recognized that, while pregnancy intention and choice are important, many women do not have the requisite resources to access the essential tools to control their own reproductive destiny. These include, but are not limited to, reliable birth control, adoption, abortion, and paid maternity leave. Reproductive justice activists have maintained that “reproductive safety and dignity depended on having the resources to get good medical care and decent housing, to have a job that pays a living wage, to live without police harassment, to live free of racism in a physically healthy environment—all of these (and other) conditions of life were fundamental conditions for reproductive dignity and safety—reproductive justice—along with legal contraception and abortion” (Ross and Solinger, 2017, p. 56). Pregnancy intention is key to promoting good maternal, neonatal, and childhood health outcomes (Hall et al., 2017), but the decision to have a child does not occur in a vacuum. It is rooted in the environmental, socioeconomic, and political world in which a woman and her family live. A discussion of preconception care is incomplete if it is not centered in the broader context of U.S. history, which included concerted efforts to encourage some women to reproduce while going to great lengths to make sure other women did not. Such distinctions were often based on race, class, and/or immigration status, with a paternalistic presumption that some women were inherently fit to be mothers while others were not. Notable examples of public PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-10 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS policies influencing the reproductive status of women in this country include the eugenics movement, forced sterilization campaigns, and welfare programs penalizing women for having a man in the home or having children (Kluchin, 2009; Ross and Solinger, 2017; Stern, 2005). As an example, in the 1970s, many low-income women and women of color, including Puerto Rican, African American, Chicano, and AI/AN women, experienced mass forced sterilization. AI/AN women suffered particularly serious abuse from federal policies that enabled AI/AN children to be taken from their families in addition to numerous violations of reproductive rights (Torpy, 2000). These examples underscore that there is much more at play than personal reproductive choice when a woman makes the decision of whether to have children and emphasize how the health care system can best support all women and families equitably in making this important decision. Prenatal and Postpartum Care For decades, the delivery of prenatal care has been a cornerstone of the U.S. strategy to reduce infant mortality and perinatal disparities (Alexander and Kotelchuck, 2001; Lu et al., 2003, 2010). The primary focus of prenatal care has shifted over time from focusing on medical intervention to providing more comprehensive intervention and prevention with public health approaches (Lu and Lu, 2008; Lu et al., 2010). Prenatal care originated from research conducted in early 20th-century England by John W. Ballantyne, who proposed that “to prevent fetal abnormalities and reduce maternal, fetal, and neonatal deaths, medical supervision for pregnant women should be provided throughout pregnancy rather than only during labor” (Lu and Lu, 2008, p. 592). In the United States, prenatal care began with a program of nurse home visiting to pregnant women by Mrs. William Lowell Putnam at the Boston Lying-In Hospital in 1901, which led to the establishment of an outpatient clinic in 1911 that provided prenatal visits consisting of history and physical examination, blood pressure measurement, and urinalysis (Lu and Lu, 2008). From the beginning, the content of prenatal care was influenced by concerns about toxemia (preeclampsia), which was diagnosed by high blood pressure and excess protein in the urine. Such concerns also contributed to establishing the timing and frequency of prenatal visits (Lu and Lu, 2008). Several studies (Eisner et al., 1979; Gortmaker, 1979; Greenberg, 1983; IOM, 1973; Taffel, 1978) published in the 1970s found a significant association between no prenatal care and the incidence of low birth weight (LBW), a leading cause of infant mortality and perinatal disparities. Citing these studies, a 1985 IOM report concluded that the “overwhelming weight of the evidence is that prenatal care reduces low birthweight” (p. 146) and promoted prenatal care as a key population-wide public health intervention for improving birth outcomes in the United States (IOM, 1985). In 1986, the U.S. Public Health Service assembled an expert panel to assess the content of prenatal care. In its 1989 report, the expert panel identified three basic components of prenatal care: (1) early and continuing risk assessment, (2) health promotion, and (3) medical and psychosocial interventions and follow-up (NIH, 1989). Soon thereafter, Congress enacted a series of legislative initiatives that incrementally expanded Medicaid eligibility to low-income pregnant women and children independent of their welfare status. Many states then further expanded Medicaid eligibility and streamlined the process of enrollment into prenatal care (Handler et al., 2011). Arguments for expansion of access to prenatal care were bolstered by cost-effectiveness analyses, which suggested that savings could be achieved by reducing LBW, though the cost savings may have been overstated (Huntington and Connell, 1994). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-11 In part stemming from these national and state policies, the adoption of timely and adequate prenatal care has increased substantially over the past few decades (Kogan et al., 1998; Martin et al., 2002; Piper et al., 1994). This increase, however, did not lead to an immediate reduction in LBW or disparities in birth outcomes. While many reasons could have contributed to the persistent poor outcomes (Alexander and Slay, 2002), some began to question the effectiveness of prenatal care as a population-wide strategy for improving birth outcomes. Two reviews published in 1995 raised concerns regarding the validity of the evidence used to support the benefit of prenatal care (Alexander and Korenbrot, 1995; Fiscella, 1995). Citing problems with inconsistent results, insufficient adjustment for prematurity bias, and inadequate control for the effect of critical confounders and potential selection bias in earlier studies, Fiscella concluded that “current evidence does not satisfy the criteria necessary to establish that prenatal care definitely improves birth outcomes” (Fiscella, 1995, p. 475). Alexander and Korenbrot (1995) also concluded from their systematic review that “[t]here is little done during the standard prenatal care visit that could be expected to reduce low birth weight” (p. 113). Lu et al. (2003) concluded from a review of the content of prenatal care in 2003 that neither preterm birth nor intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR)—the twin constituents of LBW—can be effectively prevented by prenatal care in its present form. They contended that “[p]reventing LBW will require reconceptualization of prenatal care as part of a longitudinally and contextually integrated strategy to promote optimal development of women’s reproductive health not only during pregnancy, but over the life course” (Lu et al., 2003, p. 362). These critiques led to a dampening of enthusiasm for prenatal care and a search for alternative strategies, such as bolstering preconception care services, to improve birth and child health outcomes in the United States. It should be noted, however, that most extant studies examined prenatal care in a limited form, addressing primarily clinical risk factors for pregnancy complications rather than what truly matters to both maternal (and paternal) health and the developmental origins of the child’s future health. They also focused on a few birth outcomes rather than examining a broader array of health and developmental outcomes for children and families (Lu et al., 2010). While there is great evidence that pregnancy is a critical life event and a sensitive period for healthy child development, experts still disagree about how the health care system should effectively organize and deliver prenatal care. Later in this chapter, the committee calls for a redesign of prenatal care to improve access, content, quality, delivery, and financing. Access can be improved with outreach, care coordination, and technology. Content could be expanded to include more detailed assessment, education, and management of psychosocial and environmental risks. Quality improvement efforts could address implicit bias and unequal treatment. Most importantly, this committee calls for a transformation of the organization and delivery of prenatal care to achieve greater vertical, horizontal, and longitudinal integration, including greater linkages to community services and women’s health across the life course. This report does not address health systems redesign to better support childbirth in the United States, as it is the subject of an ongoing study by another National Academies committee.4 4 See https://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BCYF/Research_Issues_in_the_Assessment_of_Birth_Settings/index.h tm (accessed July 26, 2019). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-12 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Postpartum Care The postpartum period marks the time after delivery when maternal physiology returns to the non-pregnant state. This period, often referred to as the “fourth trimester,” is generally considered to last 6–8 weeks (ACOG, 2018b). Many traditional cultures prescribe 30 to 40 days of rest and recovery (ACOG, 2018b), such as zuò yuè zi (“doing the month”) in China and Taiwan (Pillsbury et al., 1978), a 21-day period of rest called sam chil il in Korea (Dennis et al., 2007; Park and Dimigen, 1995), la cuarentena (which also means quarantine and comes from cuarenta, the word for 40 in Spanish) in Latin America, and lying-in, which gave rise to the establishment of lying-in hospitals in England and the United States during the 20th century (Eberhard-Gran et al., 2010). In many cultures, the woman and her newborn are surrounded by family and community members who offer instrumental emotional support during this period. In the United States, however, many women have to navigate the postpartum transition on their own with little formal or informal support, wrestling with lack of sleep, fatigue, pain, stress, breastfeeding difficulties, and new onset or exacerbation of preexisting health and social issues, such as postpartum depression, substance dependence, intimate partner violence, and other concerns (ACOG, 2018b). Postpartum care provides an opportunity to address these issues, but for many U.S. women, it is often limited to a single 6-week postpartum visit, and some women receive no postpartum care at all. In the Listening to Mothers III Survey, one-third of respondents reported attending one postpartum office visit, while 1 in 10 mothers reported not having a visit (Declercq et al., 2013). Among the latter group, “I felt fine and didn’t need to go” (42 percent), “I felt that I had already completed all of my maternity care” (18 percent), “too hard to get to office” (12 percent), and “didn’t have insurance” (7 percent) were the most common reasons given for not having a visit (Declercq et al., 2013, p. ix). Nonattendance is greater among certain groups, including low-income women, Medicaid insurance holders, and those with inadequate prenatal care (DiBari et al., 2014). One recent study of Medicaid deliveries in California found that only half of all women, and one third of African American women, attended a postpartum visit (Thiel de Bocanegra et al., 2017). Even for women who receive postpartum care, the typical 6-week postpartum visit may be too late to address some early onset issues and too limited to address other late onset or persistent problems. For example, more than half of postpartum strokes occur within 10 days of discharge (Too et al., 2018) and 17.5 percent of pregnancy-related deaths occur between 43 and 365 days postpartum, often as a result of cardiomyopathy or mental health conditions (Building U.S. Capacity to Review and Prevent Maternal Deaths, 2018), which a 6-week postpartum visit may be ill equipped to prevent. Rather than an arbitrary “6-week” check, in 2018, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) called for a reconceptualization of postpartum care as an ongoing process, the timing of which should be individualized and woman centered (ACOG, 2018b). ACOG recommends that all women have contact with their obstetric care providers within the first 3 weeks postpartum. Women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy should be seen no later than 7–10 days postpartum, and women with severe hypertension should be seen within 72 hours (ACOG, 2018b). ACOG recommends that this initial assessment should be followed up with ongoing care as needed, concluding with a comprehensive postpartum visit no later than 12 weeks after birth. ACOG also recommends that the comprehensive postpartum visit include a full assessment of physical, social, and psychological well-being, including the following domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-13 spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance (ACOG, 2018b). In practice, however, providing comprehensive postpartum care is disincentivized by prevailing health care financing practices, whereby the postpartum visit is bundled with the rest of obstetrical care, for which providers receive a global payment with no additional reimbursement for postpartum care. To deliver comprehensive postpartum care, ACOG also recommends an interprofessional postpartum care team, which consists of the primary maternity care provider, infant health care provider, primary care provider, and specialty consultants, as well as a care coordinator or case manager, lactation support provider, home visitor, and family and friends (ACOG, 2018b). Presently, the care settings where many women receive postpartum care preclude such interprofessional approaches, and transforming the organization and delivery of postpartum care in the absence of additional reimbursement will likely be challenging. Lastly, ACOG recommends that the postpartum care team help facilitate transition to ongoing well-woman care (ACOG, 2018b). This is especially important for women who have chronic health conditions or have experienced a pregnancy complication, given growing research suggesting that pregnancy may be a window to a woman’s future health outlook. For example, women with pregnancies complicated by preterm birth, gestational diabetes, or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have a higher lifetime risk of maternal cardiometabolic disease (Dassanayake et al., 2019). However, for many low-income women, especially in states without Medicaid expansion, access to ongoing well-woman care becomes limited upon termination of their Medicaid coverage at 60 days postpartum. Recognizing the importance of the postpartum period as a critical time for a woman and her infant that sets the stage for their long-term health and well-being, this committee calls for a redesign of postpartum care to improve access, content, quality, delivery, and financing to better leverage its potential for advancing health equity. As will be discussed later in the chapter, access could be enhanced by colocation of maternal and infant services; greater use of home visiting, doula services, community health workers, and mHealth technology; and increased access to paid family and medical leave. Expanded care is needed to more holistically address not only clinical issues but also psychosocial and environmental concerns, with greater attention to social determinants of maternal, child, and family health and well-being. Quality could be improved by promoting quality measurement and continuous quality improvement (CQI), supporting workforce training, and, as discussed throughout the chapter, addressing implicit bias and unequal treatment along the care continuum. Organization and delivery of care could be strengthened through care coordination, systems integration, and interprofessional teamwork. To support this redesign, the committee calls for developing and testing innovative financing models, including pay-for-performance and pay-for-outcomes, unbundling postpartum care from global payment, and extending Medicaid coverage for 1 year postpartum. Pediatric Care The goal of pediatric care is to provide services to children and families that will improve their health status and functioning. Usual services include brief clinical encounters (“checkups”) beginning in the hospital immediately after birth and continuing through childhood and adolescence, with decreasing visit frequency. Typical services have traditionally included providing regular immunizations, monitoring growth and development and nutrition, advising parents on common aspects of child development, and managing common illnesses and injuries. Child health care has a focus on prevention and includes regular screening for a wide range of PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-14 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS conditions, including drowning risk, lead exposure, anemia, adversity, hunger, and infectious diseases, as well as child behavior and development. Much of the work in pediatric well-child care grew from early efforts of the U.S. Children’s Bureau and then the growth of public health departments in the states (Lesser, 1965). The Children’s Bureau emphasized early nutrition and safe milk for babies and checked feeding and weight gain. With the development of immunizations to protect children (and communities) from dangerous infectious diseases, many state health departments developed immunization clinics. The 1921 Sheppard-Towner Act5 led to substantial federal investment in well-child health programs. The American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the Act as government intrusion into health care, leading to the departure of pediatricians from the AMA and the formation of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (Baker, 1994). With the growth of the AAP, pediatricians (many of whom had worked in the public well-child clinics) increasingly integrated the elements of well-child care into their practices, ultimately overshadowing public service programs (Baker, 1994). Thus, much of pediatric well-child care grew from notions of improving child nutrition and weight gain and preventing serious infections (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, polio). Many of those acute infections have disappeared (although immunizations remain critically important) and have been replaced with epidemics of chronic diseases in pediatric populations. Where less than 2 percent of children in 1960 had a serious chronic condition that interfered on a daily basis with their usual activities (e.g., school and play), by 2010, over 8 percent had such conditions, representing a 400 percent growth in these conditions (Halfon et al., 2012; Houtrow et al., 2014; Newacheck et al., 1986; Perrin et al., 2014). These high rates of chronic conditions mainly reflect greater numbers of children with obesity, asthma, neurodevelopmental conditions (especially autism spectrum disorders [ASDs]), and mental health conditions. While rates of mental health conditions increase with child age, 1 in 6 or more children ages 2–8 have diagnosed mental, behavioral, or developmental conditions (CDC, 2019a). Children with chronic medical conditions also have higher rates of mental and behavioral conditions than similar children without chronic conditions (Perrin et al., 2019). These growing rates have led health care providers for children to recognize the importance of behavioral health in all aspects of pediatric care—the interaction of physical and mental/behavioral health and their common coexistence, along with the increasing rates of MBH conditions in children and adolescents. Initially codified in some of the Rochester Child Health Studies over a half century ago (Haggerty et al., 1975), this interest has grown into active work by several professional groups to build capacity and competence in behavioral health into the well-child experience (AAP, 2018; Foy and American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Mental Health, 2010). MBH accounts for a large proportion of visits in pediatric primary care and complicate care for most chronic conditions. Screening is a key step in prevention and an integral part of pediatric care. Given the brief time available in a child health supervision visit, pediatric clinicians cannot do all recommended screening, so they make choices for their practices, based in part on the characteristics of their patient population. Generally, child health practitioners (e.g., pediatricians, family physicians, family nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants) choose screening instruments that are brief, easily scored and interpreted, and able to identify conditions 5 Also known as the National Maternity and Infancy Protection Act, the Sheppard-Towner Act provided states with federal funding to develop programs that would increase education of prenatal and infant care. The act was passed in an effort to decrease the high rates of infant mortality in the United Sates (https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/sheppard- towner-maternity-and-infancy-protection-act-1921 [accessed April 19, 2019]). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-15 that have moderate prevalence or saliency in their practice communities (AAP, 2016). Most child health professionals screen for growth and development, including behavioral issues and developmental delays, and for certain conditions that early treatment may ameliorate, including ASD. AAP has codified much of child and adolescent preventive care in its document, Bright Futures, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) included Bright Futures as the basis for pediatric preventive care (AAP, 2016). The high rates and persistence of poverty among America’s children have led many groups to address this problem. To address food insecurity, AAP and the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) developed a toolkit for pediatricians that includes a validated, AAP- recommended two-question screening tool called The Hunger Vital SignTM (AAP and FRAC, 2017). In addition, AAP, recognizing that poverty affects so many aspects of child health and development and essentially all types of clinical problems, joined these efforts by making poverty a major segment of its Agenda for Children (AAP, n.d.-a). All pediatricians face the consequences of child poverty in their practices. Children with leukemia and other serious conditions experience higher mortality, and poverty affects all children’s ability to adhere to medication and treatment (Mishra et al., 2011). Low-income children have higher rates of most chronic conditions and typically have more severe cases (WHO, n.d.). Poverty affects parents’ resources to care for their children’s illnesses and limits access to many treatment services. AAP has educated pediatricians about poverty and what they can do in their practices (AAP Council on Community Pediatrics, 2016), and pediatricians increasingly screen for poverty and other SDOH, particularly checking for access to day care, home and neighborhood safety, hunger, and housing, especially along with partnering community agencies (Garg et al., 2015; Shekarchi et al., 2018). Furthermore, pediatricians have provided much leadership in the development of life course sciences, theory, and practice, in part because of their perspective based in the dynamics of child development in the context of families and communities, along with their recognition of the early childhood antecedents of many long-term health and mental health conditions (Halfon, 2012; Halfon and Hochstein, 2002). Over the past few decades, there has been significant growth in diversity in the pediatric population without similar diversification of the pediatrics workforce (AAP Committee on Pediatric Workforce, 2013). Recognition of disparities has driven pediatric efforts to address equity and assure equal access to services and treatment. Efforts to transform into team care and use telehealth mechanisms in part reflect the recognition that such changes will help pediatricians more effectively work on issues of poverty in their patients and communities. These changes acknowledge that enhancing pediatric practice with personnel knowledgeable and skillful in helping families access a breadth of community services will help address disparities. Pediatric care in the United States is organized across a variety of small and large practices, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), and hospital-based programs (for general and specialty care). Increasingly, smaller, community-based practices have merged to become larger, multisite practices, some limited to the care of children and youth, while others are multispecialty programs offering a larger range of services to a population of all ages. Many children’s hospitals have hospital-based primary care programs and/or organized relationships or networks with primary care practices in their surrounding communities. Both safety net hospitals and FQHCs more often serve a large, low-income, Medicaid-insured population (Nath et al., 2016) with overrepresentation of black and Latino children and youth (Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, 2017, 2018). Pediatricians have pioneered the concept of the PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-16 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS medical home, an organized and central place to coordinate all the health care needs of a patient or family. In recent years, this notion has spread among many other physician groups, especially family medicine and internal medicine. Expanded visions of the medical home increasingly embrace characteristics of community-based, comprehensive care (Ader et al., 2015; Bair- Merritt et al., 2015; Homer et al., 2008; Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative, n.d.; Stille et al., 2010). Medical home have helped efforts, especially in family medicine and pediatrics, to move to a whole-family, whole-child approach. Routine screening in pediatric care for parental mental health (especially postpartum depression) and other risks (e.g. smoking, firearms) and inclusion of parent training programs in pediatric programs are examples of ways that clinical care has become more family focused. The distribution of subspecialists—physicians who care for more complex and usually chronic conditions—differs for children and adults. Adult-treating subspecialists are widely distributed, but subspecialists for children are mainly centralized in hospitals that care for large numbers of children and youth. This distribution leads to different problems with access for young children and families. These children’s hospital programs, some freestanding and others part of larger general hospitals, provide the majority of health care for children with highly specialized needs—the groups with complex medical conditions and rarer childhood conditions. The substantial numbers of children and youth with chronic and complex health conditions, especially those with less common chronic conditions, need regular access to specialized pediatric care (e.g., specialized surgeons or pediatric cardiology). Conclusion 5-1: The current health care system focuses mainly on clinical goals and addresses the multiple other determinants of health in fragmented and highly variable ways. Despite high-quality clinical care, the health status of America’s children and young families is far worse than in comparable developed countries. U.S. health care provides only limited attention to integration of health care for the whole family, health care across the life course, or integration of mental and behavioral health with the rest of health care. The need for the integration of health care and the whole-family approach is discussed in more detail later in the chapter. IMPROVING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES To realize the full potential of health care services, people need access to regular primary and preventive care across the life course. The nation will be best served by a health care system that guarantees all people universal access to high-quality health care across the life course and in which preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care represent a series of well-timed, more intense encounters with a broader array of services (“boosters”) during critical junctures in life. Cramming a life course worth of health care into a single preconception visit (or even a few visits) a few months before attempting to conceive will do little to advance equity in birth outcomes or children’s health. Similarly, prenatal and pediatric care that is primarily based on episodic, short visits to a medical clinic or office for a narrow range of clinical services scheduled when convenient for health care systems and providers is not enough to reverse the trend of centuries of inequitable health care treatment and outcomes experienced by our nation’s children. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-17 Health Insurance Is Necessary But Not Sufficient Health insurance is a major facilitator to ensuring access to health care services; lack of insurance coverage is a significant barrier (Bailey et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2011; DeVoe et al., 2010, 2012a; Howell and Kenney, 2012; IOM, 2002; Sommers et al., 2015, 2017a; Tumin et al., 2019; Wallace and Sommers, 2016; Wherry et al., 2016). A Commonwealth Fund report found that insured women were significantly more likely than uninsured women to receive cancer screenings and other preventive services and to have a regular source of care (Gunja et al., 2017) (see Figure 5-1). Even for those with a usual source of care, health insurance improves access to more comprehensive services (DeVoe et al., 2008c, 2012a). For children, health insurance substantially improves health care access and use (IOM, 1998). The large majority of children and youth in the United States (about 95 percent) have health insurance coverage, with about 30 to 40 percent of it from public sources: Medicaid and CHIP (Alker and Pham, 2018; Cornachione et al., 2016). The small percentage of children and youth without health insurance use fewer health care services and fare much worse on measures of health and health care quality (DeVoe et al., 2008a, 2009b, 2010, 2012b). Although studies of health insurance interventions are usually natural experiments, the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, in which a 2008 lottery extended Medicaid to selected residents, represented a rare opportunity to assess the impact of insurance coverage through a randomized study design (James, 2015). Findings from the experiment confirm the well- documented associations between an individual’s health insurance and access to health care and the causal link between a parent having access to insurance and a child gaining coverage (Bailey et al., 2016; DeVoe et al., 2015b,c; Gold et al., 2014; Hatch et al., 2016; Marino et al., 2016; O’Malley et al., 2016). Efforts to achieve expanded coverage in Massachusetts and several other states also led to similar landmark studies showing the importance of health insurance as a facilitator of health care access (Finkelstein et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2019). FIGURE 5-1: Women with a regular source of care and receiving preventive services by insurance status SOURCES: Gunja et al., 2017, Commonwealth Fund PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-18 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Shortly after Oregon’s insurance expansions and related efforts to achieve expanded coverage in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased access to health insurance coverage nationally to millions of Americans through a combination of Medicaid expansions, private insurance reforms, and premium tax credits and subsidies through new “exchange” plans. After the ACA, the percentage of uninsured women decreased from 20 percent (19 million) in 2010 to 11 percent (11 million) in 2016 (Gunja et al., 2017). Low-income women and women of color have made particularly large gains. Women ages 19–64 earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) who are uninsured fell from 25 percent in 2010 to 16 percent in 2016 for black women, 49 percent in 2010 to 32 percent in 2016 for Latina women, and 34 percent in 2010 to 18 percent in 2016 overall (see Figure 5-2). For children and youth, the ACA also led to the lowest rates of child uninsurance in U.S. history. While some of the insurance gains for pediatric populations reflected new eligibility under the ACA, most gains resulted from newly insured parents learning of their children’s eligibility for existing programs (esp., Medicaid and CHIP) (Garrett and Gangopadhyaya, 2015), reconfirming that insurance is a family affair (DeVoe et al., 2008b, 2009b, 2011a, 2015a,c,d; Dubay and Kenney, 2003; IOM, 2002; Yamauchi et al., 2013). FIGURE 5-2: Percent of women ages 19–64 who are uninsured and early less than 200 percent of the FPL SOURCE: Gunja et al., 2017, Commonwealth Fund Prior to the ACA expansions, insurance coverage was not accessible to many low-income women of child-bearing age unless they became pregnant. Even after becoming pregnant, some women experienced long delays to obtain coverage, and some were unable to access care until the second or third trimester (see Table 5-3). CDC reported that in 2009, the percentage of women who were uninsured decreased from 23.4 percent in the month before pregnancy to 1.5 percent at the time of delivery, while Medicaid coverage increased from 16.6 percent in the month before pregnancy to 43.9 percent at delivery (D’Angelo et al., 2015). Even with the recent PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-19 gains in access to coverage before and during a pregnancy, more than 1 in 5 (21.3 percent) American women who gave birth in 2016 began prenatal care after the first trimester; 4.6 percent began care in the third trimester, and 1.6 percent received no care at all. In all, approximately 15 percent of American women received inadequate prenatal care. Moreover, there are significant racial-ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in prenatal care use (Osterman and Martin, 2018). In addition to access to coverage, the ACA further improved access to essential care for women, especially preconception care, by mandating coverage for women’s preventive services, including all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and counseling and at least one well-woman preventive care visit per year with no cost-sharing (HRSA, 2018; Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, n.d.). Preconception care is also covered under well-woman preventive visits (Women's Preventive Services Initiative, n.d.). Additionally, the law mandated coverage for essential health benefits (EHBs), including maternity care and mental health services. The ACA prohibited gender rating (charging women a higher premium than men) and banned lifetime caps on benefits and exclusions based on preexisting conditions, which protected access for women with chronic conditions. A Commonwealth Fund report found that between 2010 and 2016, the percent of women ages 19–64 with health conditions who found it very difficult or impossible to find coverage they needed in the individual market decreased by nearly half, while those who said they were not getting care because of costs (did not fill prescription, skipped recommended test or treatment, had a medical problem but did not seek primary or specialty care) decreased from 48 percent to 38 percent (Gunja et al., 2017). Several other studies have also shown similar improvements (Angier et al., 2015, 2017, 2019a; Heintzman et al., 2017; Hoopes et al., 2016; Huguet et al., 2017, 2018; Sommers et al., 2016, 2017b). Presently, it is unclear what effects recent efforts to deregulate the ACA, such as the repeal of the individual mandate, proposed extension of short-term coverage policies (which do not have to comply with many ACA consumer protections) (Keith, 2018), state waiver for EHBs, and religious and moral exemptions from contraceptive coverage mandates, will have on access to primary and preventive services for both men and women. It is likely that, as with prior policies that scaled back insurance access, these repeal efforts will negatively impact access to and use of recommended primary and preventive care services (Carlson et al., 2006; DeVoe et al., 2012a; Solotaroff et al., 2005; Tumin et al., 2019). As demonstrated above, Medicaid is an important source of insurance coverage and facilitator of basic access to women’s health care services, particularly for low-income women. In 2014, Medicaid provided more than 25 million low-income women with health and long-term care coverage (Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017), approximately two thirds of them between ages 19 and 49. Medicaid is particularly important for low-income women and women of color. While overall 1 in 5 (20 percent) women of reproductive age were enrolled in Medicaid in 2015, 27 percent of Hispanic women, 31 percent of African American women, and nearly half (48 percent) of low-income women in the United States were enrolled (Sonfield, 2017). Expansion of Medicaid coverage for pregnant women in the 1990s led to significant increases in access to and use of prenatal care; today, Medicaid covers nearly half of all births in the United States (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017). For nonpregnant women, the ACA legislation extended Medicaid eligibility to all individuals with household incomes up to 138 percent of the FPL; however, a 2012 Supreme Court ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius made Medicaid expansion optional for states, resulting in inconsistent coverage policies across the country (Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017). As of May 2019, 36 states and DC PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-20 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS have expanded Medicaid; 14 states have not (Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, 2019). Overall, the rate of uninsurance among low-income women of reproductive age decreased by 13.2 percentage points due to ACA Medicaid expansions (Johnston et al., 2018). A recent study found that from 2011 to 2016, states that expanded Medicaid showed significant improvements in black-white disparities in preterm, very preterm, LBW, and very LBW rates, compared to states that did not (Brown et al., 2019). Studies have shown that in states that expanded Medicaid, disparities by race and ethnicity in the rates of insurance coverage and access to care have narrowed more than in states that have not (Artiga et al., 2019; Hayes et al., 2017). TABLE 5-3: Trimester that Prenatal Care Began, by Selected Characteristics: United States, 2016 Timing of PNC Late or no PNC1 Selected characteristic First trimester Second trimester Total Late PNC2 No PNC Percent Total 77.1 16.7 6.2 4.6 1.6 Age of mother Under 20 61.2 27.6 11.2 8.3 2.9 Under 15 36.7 37.6 25.7 19.2 6.5 15–19 61.5 27.5 11.0 8.2 2.9 20–24 70.3 21.7 8.0 5.9 2.1 25–29 77.8 16.3 6.0 4.4 1.5 30–34 82.1 13.1 4.8 3.6 1.2 35–39 81.7 13.5 4.8 3.6 1.2 40 and over 78.4 16.0 5.6 4.1 1.5 Race and Hispanic origin Non-Hispanic, single-race: White 82.3 13.4 4.3 3.3 1.1 Black 66.5 23.5 10.0 7.0 3.0 American Indian or Alaska Native 63.0 24.5 12.5 9.2 3.3 Asian 80.6 14.0 5.4 4.6 0.8 Asian Indian 83.4 12.1 4.6 3.9 0.7 Chinese 81.2 11.4 7.4 6.9 0.5 Filipino 82.8 13.4 3.8 3.0 0.8 Japanese 85.5 10.5 4.0 3.2 0.8 Korean 85.3 10.6 4.1 3.4 0.7 Vietnamese 80.2 15.3 4.5 3.3 1.2 Other Asian 71.7 22.0 6.3 5.0 1.3 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 51.9 28.9 19.2 14.2 5.0 Hawaiian 69.9 20.5 9.6 6.0 3.6 Guamanian 72.1 21.4 6.6 5.0 1.6 Samoan 56.9 29.1 14.0 10.4 3.6 Other Pacific Islander 43.8 31.3 24.8 18.4 6.4 Hispanic 72.0 20.3 7.7 5.6 2.1 Mexican 71.4 20.6 8.0 5.7 2.3 PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-21 Puerto Rican 76.2 18.1 5.7 4.3 1.4 Cuban 82.0 14.1 3.8 2.9 0.9 Central or South American 68.1 22.7 9.2 6.9 2.2 Other and unknown Hispanic 74.3 18.8 6.8 5.1 1.7 Live-birth order 1st birth 79.0 15.3 5.7 4.4 1.3 2nd birth 80.1 14.8 5.1 3.9 1.2 3rd birth 75.8 18.0 6.2 4.6 1.6 4th birth or higher 66.2 23.8 10.0 6.7 3.3 Educational attainment3,4 Less than high school 62.7 26.1 11.2 7.5 3.7 High school 73.4 19.5 7.2 5.0 2.2 Some college5 80.2 15.1 4.7 3.5 1.2 Bachelor’s degree or higher 87.6 9.1 3.3 2.8 0.5 Source of payment for the delivery Medicaid. 68.1 23.3 8.6 6.4 2.2 Private insurance 87.0 10.3 2.7 2.1 0.6 Self-pay 54.8 25.4 19.8 13.2 6.6 Other6 75.0 16.8 8.2 5.8 2.3 1PNC that began in the third trimester and no PNC. 2PNC that began in the third trimester. 3Excludes women under age 25. 4Significantly increasing trend in first trimester PNC by educational attainment (p < 0.05). 5Includes associate’s degree. 6Includes Indian Health Service, CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services) or TRICARE, other government (federal, state, or local), and charity. NOTES: PNC is prenatal care. Chi-squared test statistics for each variable by trimester prenatal care began were statistically significant (p < 0.05). SOURCE: Osterman and Martin, 2018 Medicaid and CHIP finance health insurance for nearly 50 percent of U.S. children and youth. Children and youth with public insurance have about the same rates of use and quality of care as those with commercial insurance (DeVoe et al., 2011c,d), although those data do not account for the higher rates of chronic conditions and disability among publicly insured children. Although most U.S. children and youth currently have health insurance, children who are low income or from racial and ethnic minority populations face problems with lack of access to ongoing, comprehensive health care services (McCormick et al., 2001; Weinick and Krauss, 2000). Children and youth with public insurance (Medicaid and CHIP) disproportionately include black and Latino populations (Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, 2017, 2018). Medicaid demonstration waivers have shown promise in allowing states to test new approaches in Medicaid that differ from federal program rules (Musumeci et al., 2018) in order to expand and broaden access to coverage for populations that have traditionally not been eligible for Medicaid. For example, 27 states have established limited-scope Medicaid family planning programs through waivers to extend access to family planning services to uninsured PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-22 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS women who do not qualify for full Medicaid coverage. This includes low-income women whose incomes are not low enough or who have lost Medicaid eligibility after giving birth (Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, 2017). Additionally, Louisiana has added an interpregnancy component to their Medicaid waiver to provide interconception care for low-income, high-risk women who had an adverse birth outcome (ASTHO, 2013). Medicaid waivers have also helped children and youth with special health care needs access a number of treatment services in home and community settings. The original Medicaid waiver was for an Iowa child who had Medicaid coverage while hospitalized (because her parents’ income was not considered for inpatient eligibility) but would lose it if she came home with multiple and complex needed services. The waiver allowed hospital care to be substituted with home care (Perrin et al., 1993). Other Medicaid demonstration waivers have been proposed that could negatively impact eligibility, enrollment, and benefits, including work and reporting requirements, coverage lock- outs, premium cost-sharing, restrictions on presumptive eligibility and retroactive coverage, and time limits on coverage (Flowers and Accius, 2019). The impact of these waivers on access to preconception, prenatal, and pediatric health care services is still being studied; however, similar policies making Medicaid eligibility more restrictive in the past (e.g., proof of citizenship requirements) have had negative effects on access to care (Angus and Devoe, 2010; Bauer et al., 2011; Hatch et al., 2014). Arkansas has seen thousands of working-age adults, including many with dependent children at home, lose Medicaid benefits, along with no growth in job participation (Rudowitz et al., 2019; Sommers et al., 2019). However, federal courts struck down Arkansas's work requirement for expanded Medicaid coverage in March 2019. Recent reports indicate the first increase in rates of uninsurance among children in a decade, in part reflecting new restrictions on parents’ access (Alker and Pham, 2018). Many Factors Affect Access to Health Care Services A complex array of factors beyond insurance coverage influence preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care use (Heaman et al., 2014; Kalmuss and Fennelly, 1990). Some of these factors include the complexity of household needs and social challenges (e.g., child care, transportation, addictions, lack of support), caregiver qualities (lack of time, negative behaviors), health system barriers (shortage of providers), and program/service characteristics (distance, long waits, short visits). Such barriers (particularly transportation to health care facilities, ability to pay for needed treatments, taking time from work for health care appointments, and costs related to housing and food) may take priority over health care for families. Regarding access to prenatal care, a study of 246 African American women residing in Washington, DC identified psychosocial stress, substance use, child care problems, negative attitudes toward pregnancy and prenatal care, insurance/financial constraints, and nonparticipation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program as key determinants of lower than recommended rates of prenatal care use (Johnson et al., 2007). Another study of low-income African American women in Milwaukee, Wisconsin identified structural barriers to prenatal care, such as transportation and insurance, negative or ambivalent attitudes toward prenatal care, perceived poor quality of care, and unintended pregnancy, and psychosocial stressors, such as overall life stress and chaos (Mazul et al., 2017). Children and youth with special health care needs (SHCN) represent a population that experiences unique access challenges. A sizable percentage of U.S. children (10–20 percent or more, depending on the definition; about 11.4 percent of children ages 0–5 and 22.7 percent of PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-23 children ages 6–11) have SHCN (HHS, 2015; NASEM, 2018) and their needs depend on the severity and prevalence of the condition. Most children and youth with more common conditions (asthma, obesity, mental health conditions, and neurodevelopmental conditions) receive the bulk of their care in community pediatric settings, including hospital outpatient clinics. Children and youth with more severe and less common conditions get a large part of their care from specialized pediatric hospitals (Perrin et al., 2014). Many households have difficulty gaining access to specialized care because most subspecialists are found in centralized children’s hospitals, which may be distant from their homes. Children insured by Medicaid, disproportionately black or Latino (Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, 2017, 2018), particularly experience problems in accessing subspecialists (Bisgaier and Rhodes, 2011). Furthermore, narrow insurance networks may not include all needed specialists, creating barriers to needed subspecialty care. Assuring access to quality health care requires addressing both financial and nonfinancial barriers. Lu et al. (2010) identified a number of promising strategies to increase financial and nonfinancial access to timely care, including policy initiatives to promote innovative care models, support outreach and care coordination, and increase provider participation in Medicaid- funded care. State Medicaid agencies have increasingly relied on managed care organizations (private-sector companies that contract with Medicaid to manage the program) to implement and manage Medicaid programs. Currently, about 80 percent of Medicaid recipients receive care through a managed care arrangement (MACPAC, 2016). Many managed care organizations have experimented with new programs or financing, although there are few consistent patterns (Institute for Medicaid Innovation, n.d.). It is also not yet apparent whether this trend has had a significant impact on reducing health disparities. Another example is Oregon’s coordinated care organization (CCO) model, implemented in 2012 and designed to improve the coordination of care for the state’s Medicaid beneficiaries. In the state, CCOs cover a distinct geographic area and have broad budgeting authority for Medicaid and CHIP funding within that area, along with incentives to improve quality and broaden attention to social determinants of care in part through active collaboration with schools and community agencies (Oregon Health Authority, 2018; Stecker, 2013). CCOs led to significant increases in early prenatal care initiation and a reduction in disparities across insurance types but no difference in overall prenatal care adequacy (Muoto et al., 2016). Regarding access to postpartum care, colocating postpartum and well-baby care has been suggested as a strategy for improving access (Stuebe et al., 2019). Colocating care could reduce transportation, child care, medical leave, and other barriers and facilitate care coordination for issues that require joint assessment and management of both mother and infant, such as breastfeeding (Stuebe et al., 2019). Greater use of home visitors, doulas, and community health workers can also help improve access (Hans et al., 2018). Providing culturally congruent care to women of color can increase breastfeeding and reduce perinatal disparities (Kozhimannil et al., 2013), but only three states currently provide Medicaid coverage for doula services (Stuebe et al., 2019). Leveraging mHealth technology, such as SMS, remote blood pressure monitoring, and telehealth, can also improve postpartum follow-up (ACOG, 2018b; CMS Maternal & Infant Health Initiative, 2015). Presently, nearly one quarter of women return to work within 10 days postpartum, and nearly one half return to work within 40 days postpartum (Klerman et al., 2014); expanding paid family and medical leave could also increase access to and use of postpartum care (Rossin-Slater and Uniat, 2019) (see Chapter 6 for a discussion on paid family leave). Because many health and psychosocial issues persist or emerge beyond 60 days postpartum, PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-24 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS some experts have called for extending Medicaid coverage for at least 12 months postpartum, especially in Medicaid nonexpansion states (Stuebe et al., 2019). For nearly three decades, state Title V programs have played an important role in increasing access to and use of timely prenatal care and other family health care services through outreach and coordination by (1) facilitating partnerships among agencies that provide direct services to pregnant women; (2) helping to ensure that maternal and child health professionals in WIC, Head Start, and other public programs provide pregnant women with accurate and current information on coverage in their state; (3) increasing access to presumptive Medicaid eligibility, which provides pregnant women with access to immediate prenatal care; and (4) increasing continuity of coverage for low-income women who become pregnant (Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, 2016). State and federal Maternal and Child Health Programs (Title V) have had even longer histories of involvement with very young children, following earlier Children’s Bureau programs for safe milk and infant nutrition (Lesser, 1965). A t least 30 percent of federal support for state programs has been allocated for well-child programs, and at least 30 percent goes to programs for children with SHCN (formerly the Crippled Children’s Service) (HRSA, 2019, n.d.). As with women’s health, state programs have helped to facilitate partnerships across key agencies, improve knowledge of the health status of children and youth in the state, and link households with other agencies, especially Medicaid and the Social Security Administration (SSA) (for SSI coverage). Recent growth of community acute care clinics—some operated by pharmacy chains and others by larger hospitals—have offered new community-based access to health care. These centers offer immediate and convenient care for (generally minor) acute conditions. The centers offer variable connections to children’s and families’ ongoing primary care; in several communities, such centers have worked to share medical records and referral information with ongoing primary care programs (Conners et al., 2017). Acute care centers, at times collaborating with telehealth companies, can offer immediate and convenient services. For example, a parent of a sick child can call from home (or work), reach a health care clinician, describe symptoms, and efficiently receive advice. Nonetheless, most innovative walk-in clinics, acute care centers, and commercial telehealth models have focused on middle-income communities and less on low- income areas. Thus, there is no evidence that they reduce disparities. Improving Access to Needed Health Care Based on its review of the evidence in the sections above, the committee concludes: Conclusion 5-2: Although health insurance coverage has grown substantially in the past few decades, mainly through Medicaid expansions and other insurance enhancements, access remains a problem for many families with young children, who experience numerous barriers to obtaining health care services in addition to lack of health insurance coverage. Multiple agencies, especially the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, have worked to diminish barriers to care. Further efforts are needed to address financial and nonfinancial barriers to care and to ensure that all families have access to adequate preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care. To address the issues identified related to access to care, the committee recommends: PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-25 Recommendation 5-1: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state, tribal, and territorial Medicaid agencies, public and private payers, and state and federal policy makers should adopt policies and practices that ensure universal access to high-quality health care across the life course. This includes: • Increasing access to patient- and family-centered care, • Ensuring access to preventive services and essential health benefits, and • Increasing culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach and services. Achieving this recommendation requires: • Increasing access to patient- and family-centered care. Specific actions include integrating services longitudinally, vertically, and horizontally to increase entry points to care for children and families; incorporating enabling services to facilitate access to care; expanding attention to whole family needs in clinical care; and overcoming household challenges, such as transportation and child care needs. (See the sections that follow for discussion on the need to integrate health care services across the life course.) • Supporting comprehensive access across the life course. Expand comprehensive supports for health across the life course. Programs should increase awareness of and access to family planning services and general preventive health services that keep parents healthy and promote positive attachments essential to early life development. • Protecting access to benefits. Assure continuous coverage and access for all men, women, and children. Coverage should include child and family preventive services and EHBs, with a prohibition against lifetime benefit caps and preexisting condition exclusions. • Actively promoting inclusion in coverage and care. Promote culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach and services as well as increased diversity in the health care workforce. • Systematic application of measures: For example, adoption of a measure to assess disparities in timely and adequate access to well-woman care, prenatal, and pediatric care as a national performance measure by the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. PROMOTING QUALITY OF CARE Quality health care is timely, equitable, safe, patient centered, efficient, and effective (IOM, 2001). Equitable care means care that does not vary in quality because of demographic characteristics, such as sex, ethnicity, geographic location, or SES (IOM, 2001). For populations who have access to health care services, the quality of the care they receive is not always safe and is often not equitable. Regarding preconception care, a survey of more than 800 women of reproductive age found that more than 1 in 4 (27 percent) were prescribed a medication with a potential teratogen (a potential cause of birth defects). Of these women, 43 percent received no counseling from their provider regarding the teratogenicity of the medication or the need for contraception (Schwarz et al., 2013). A recent review of 31 studies (Goossens, 2018) identified multiple barriers to high-quality preconception care at the provider level (unfavorable attitude PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-26 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS and lack of knowledge of preconception care, not working in a medical discipline or clinical setting that provides maternity care, lack of clarity on the responsibility for providing preconception care) and the client level (not contacting a health care provider in the preconception stage, negative attitude, and lack of knowledge of preconception care). Limited resources (e.g., lack of time, tools, guidelines, and reimbursement) were frequently reported at the organizational and societal levels. Disparities are well documented in prenatal and pediatric care across similar domains. Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement Efforts Performance measurement is a common strategy currently being employed by state and local governments, payers, hospital accreditation bodies, and professional organizations to improve health care quality. It is often linked to change strategies—public reporting and pay-for- performance (Berwick et al., 2003; Chassin, 2002; Hibbard et al., 2005; IOM, 2006; Lindenauer et al., 2007; Millenson, 2004). Public reporting fosters interest in quality on the part of physicians and hospital leaders, perhaps by appealing to their professional ethos or creating market advantages (Marshall et al., 2000; Lindenauer et al., 2014). Pay-for-performance programs are intended to enhance the business case for quality improvement (QI) by rewarding excellence and reversing what have been described as perverse financial incentives that can deter providers and hospitals from investing in QI efforts (Dudley et al., 1998; Epstein et al., 2004; Millenson, 2004). To date, the National Quality Forum has endorsed 18 perinatal and reproductive measures, none of which address ambulatory6 preconception or prenatal care (National Quality Forum, 2016). The only prenatal and postpartum care performance measures currently in use are the two Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures on the rates of first trimester prenatal care and postpartum visits (National Committee for Quality Assurance, 2018). There are more measures specific to the quality of child health care, which address some of the main aspects of well-child care (e.g., immunizations, regular visits, screening, developmental assessment). The reauthorization of the CHIP program in 2009 provided the first major support for quality measurement in public health insurance programs for children and youth and led to substantial growth in pediatric care measures and ongoing efforts to expand and refine these measures (AHRQ, 2018; Perrin, 2012). Measures have generally focused on children without chronic conditions, with the exception of the high-prevalence conditions (especially asthma), and quality-of-care measures for children with disability are much more limited (Perrin, 2012). Medicaid publishes and updates a quality measure set for children (Medicaid, n.d.). Several groups have catalogued children’s quality measures (Beal et al., 2004), and the AAP and the National Initiative for Children’s Health Quality, among others, have pursued consensus on best child health quality measures (Adirim, 2017). The Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (CoIIN) is an example of a model aimed at improving maternal and child health that combines both CQI and collaborative learning to address infant mortality and perinatal disparities. The CoIIN was launched in 2012 in 13 southern U.S. states (Public Health Regions IV and VI), with early success leading to a national expansion of the program to other states. The CoIIN brought together state teams of clinical and public health leaders and policy makers to implement evidence-based and promising 6 Ambulatory care is care provided by health care professionals in outpatient settings (AHRQ, n.d.-1). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-27 strategies, supported by virtual shared workspace, CQI experts, and a data dashboard that provided real-time data to drive real-time improvements (Ghandour et al., 2017). Between 2011 and 2014, early elective delivery at less than 39 weeks decreased by 22 percent versus 14 percent in other regions, smoking cessation during pregnancy increased by 7 percent versus 2 percent, and back sleep position increased by 5 percent versus 2 percent. Preterm birth decreased by 4 percent, twice that observed in other regions, but infant mortality reductions did not differ significantly (Hirai et al., 2018b). CoIIN is particularly notable in its application of CQI methodologies, which have largely been limited to clinical settings, to drive improvements in population-level perinatal outcomes. While these efforts have improved adherence to standardized care processes, inequitable care remains pervasive throughout the system. Inequitable care means care that does not address the unique challenges and vulnerabilities made relevant by differential life experiences based on social characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, language preference, geographic location, and SES (IOM, 2001). For example, a major component of preventive health care is culturally and linguistically sensitive and literacy-appropriate health education to promote behavioral changes. Thus, an office or clinic visit is only the prelude to the fully completing the care. To fully attain the effects of care, an individual or family needs to take that education to the home and follow through with it (e.g., eat more healthy foods). If the social environment in the community or home does not have the resources to support these behavioral changes (insufficient income or no neighborhood stores to purchase healthy foods), the care plan remains unfulfilled, and the effectiveness of the care remains limited, despite the practitioners’ best intentions (Lu et al., 2010). Multiple studies of the implementation of quality measures indicate substantial improvement in attention to specific processes in the delivery of health care services (e.g., increasing screening rates, testing for harmful side effects of treatment). Increasingly, payers have assessed quality of care (e.g., screening and immunization rates) and offer financial incentives to achieve quality thresholds. These incentives have improved processes linked to better health outcomes; further research is needed to determine their impact on health outcomes directly and on disparities. Often, these assessments are done at a population level and do not highlight disparities or account for practices caring for populations with different characteristics. Thus, in addition to traditional methods to assess performance and QI, there are a number of other areas that are receiving increased attention in efforts to attain equitable health care practices, including developing new metrics and measurement methods to account for child development and well-being in the context of an intersectional and multidimensional view of health and health equity and enhanced workforce education and training (including training to recognize and address implicit bias). Development of New Metrics and Measurement Methods Growing recognition of MBH concerns among children and youth has led to the development of newer measures of developmental and behavioral screening (including social and emotional screening), treatment, and outcomes, including measures of follow-up for medications used to treat some pediatric mental health conditions. Few measures routinely collected today address SDOH. Further, toxic stress and its precipitants, including many social determinants, such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), housing instability, food insecurity, or poverty and racism, are inadequately assessed in health care settings. Substantial evidence notes that much adult chronic disease has its origins in childhood and adolescence, PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-28 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS often associated with the SDOH discussed throughout this report (Marmot et al., 2001). (See also the discussion of the Perry Preschool and Abcedarian Projects in Chapter 7.) The majority of adult mental health conditions originate in childhood or adolescence. An emerging body of research also suggests that some chronic childhood and adult diseases have a fetal origin (Barker, 1995, 2003, 2004; Calkins and Devaskar, 2011; de Boo and Harding, 2006; Kimm, 2004; Skogen and Overland, 2012) and that factors such as maternal and paternal stress, nutrition and physical activities, and occupational and environmental exposures may play a critical role in epigenetic modification and developmental programming of future health and disease. Information regarding these risks is not routinely collected, monitored, or reported during standard preconception or prenatal care visits, nor would this be feasible in a brief office visit. Until recently, pediatric care providers were not routinely screening for ACEs; however, the AAP released two policy statements and conducted substantial practitioner education, which bolstered rates of attention in community practice (Kerker et al., 2016; Szilagyi et al., 2016). Even having clear standards for screening does not assure that all child health practitioners screen for all relevant issues. A recent paper using parent reports found that, nationally, 37 percent of children received developmental screening with a validated tool (Hirai et al., 2018a). Another study, based on physician report, indicated that more than 80 percent of pediatricians reported using one or more formal tools to screen for autism, with 88 percent screening at 18 months and 74 percent screening at 24 months (Coury et al., 2017). Several national initiatives have begun to advance primary care clinicians’ understanding of ACEs and toxic stress and their capacities and competencies to identify and respond to risk factors for toxic stress and other adversity, such as the Trauma-Informed Primary Care Initiative, a partnership between the National Council for Behavioral Health and Kaiser Permanente;7 the National Pediatric Practice Community on ACEs, an initiative of the Center for Youth Wellness;8 the Trauma-Informed Care Implementation Resource Center, 9 developed by the Center for Health Care Strategies, and other initiatives (APA and AAP, 2017; APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty, 2013). The AAP has recommended regular screening for precipitants of toxic stress (Garner et al., 2012), and several professional organizations have compiled tools and resources to support clinicians in screening for social determinants (including risk factors for toxic stress), maternal depression, and early child development, such as the AAP Screening and Technical Assistance Resource (STAR) Center and the AAFP’s Center for Diversity and Health Equity (AAP, 2010; Gleason et al., 2016; Sege and Amaya-Jackson, 2017).10 Many other professional organizations are also issuing similar statements and recommendations; for example, the American Heart Association has called for upstream identification and mitigation of ACEs as a risk factor for cardiometabolic disease (NASEM, 2015; Suglia et al., 2018). As the science advances regarding contributors to child health equity, new measures that capture SDOH, including indicators of cumulative adversity and family issues that may impact health and development, have become available. The development of these measures is well 7 For more information, see https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/trauma-informed-primary-care-initiative-learning- community (accessed April 29, 2019). 8 For more information, see https://nppcaces.org (accessed April 29, 2019). 9 For more information, see https://www.chcs.org/resource/trauma-informed-care-implementation-resource-center (accessed July 17, 2019). 10 For more information on the AAFP Center for Diversity and Health Equity, see https://www.aafp.org/patient- care/social-determinants-of-health/everyone-project/cdhe.html (accessed April 29, 2019). For information on AAFP’s “EveryONE Project” to advance health equity in every community, see https://www.aafp.org/patient- care/social-determinants-of-health/everyone-project.html (accessed April 29, 2019). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-29 underway, addressing such issues as household hunger, lack of money for utilities, difficulty finding jobs, need for child care, or housing problems (AAP, n.d.-b; Arthur et al., 2018; Center for Youth Wellness, n.d.; Ellis, 2001; Garg et al., 2015; Gottlieb et al., 2016). The substantial increased attention to screening and identification of SDOH and adversity in early childhood has led to much consideration of how child and family health care services might prioritize screening centered on SDOH. However, many different screening tools exist for SDOH, with little consensus or guidelines on which ones are most appropriate or effective in different health care settings or contexts (Morone, 2017; Pai et al., 2016). Early studies show promising results with screening and intervention, and most of this work has been done in primary care practices, especially those that care for children and families (Angier et al., 2019b; Bazemore et al., 2016; Cottrell et al., 2018; DeVoe et al., 2016). There are a number of scientists actively engaged in building the evidence for SDOH screening and referral (e.g., which tools to use, how to screen, when to screen, how to incorporate technology). Providers will typically screen more when they can refer to programs that can address child and family needs. Where resources are limited, they are less likely to try to identify problems (Garg et al., 2016). With the increased recognition of the need to expand risk assessment for ACEs, the development of evidence-based, effective strategies for early and continuing assessments of ACEs and other social and environmental determinants will be a key ingredient in transforming the delivery and measurement of preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care. In addition, there is an urgent need to develop biomedical measures to detect and treat toxic stress. Interest has grown in measuring broader outcomes that may reflect more than health care, such as school readiness at age five (Jones et al., 2015) or a new composite measure of being healthy and ready to learn (Child Trends, 2018; Ghandour et al., 2018). These broader measures recognize the importance of cross-sector collaboration to keep children healthy and the health sector’s role in helping children and their families access other needed resources (housing, food, and other supports) to help improve these outcomes. As new metrics are developed, there is growing recognition that quality measurement is multidimensional and can be impacted by the clinical and social complexity of patients, families, and populations. For example, providers caring for patient populations in at-risk contexts are sometimes held accountable for achieving similar gains in quality metrics as providers in affluent communities, without adjustment for patient complexity, putting them at risk for financial loss. Misaligned financial incentives can perpetuate disparities in health care access for underserved populations and fail to recognize quality initiatives that are reducing disparities (or exacerbating them) for certain subgroups if all members of the population are not starting at the same baseline or improving at the same rate. Efforts are currently underway to create adequate adjustments for traditional measures (NCQA, n.d.), although developing adjustments for diverse child populations has been difficult (Kuhlthau et al., 2005). Enhanced Workforce Education and Training Workforce development and training is another important strategy for improving the quality of health care. The increased attention to identifying and addressing social, economic, and environmental factors adversely impacting the health of children and families has led to enhanced curricula in the training programs for child and family health care providers. These additional components strengthen the emphasis on learning about the social and community aspects of care for patients and families, implicit bias and unequal treatment, and how to more effectively collaborate with community organizations to improve care and outcomes. This PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-30 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS education variably addresses adversity, biases, and disparities, with increasing attention to such issues as food and housing insecurity and the importance of screening for ACEs and recognizing microaggressions. Advancing health equity requires sustained commitment and resources to increase the diversity and representativeness of our health care workforce. The next generation of health care providers also need to be better equipped with knowledge, skills, and tools to address MBH issues, ameliorate toxic stress, and provide TIC. This training requires explicit curricula on how to recognize and eliminate implicit bias and unequal treatment in health care. The future workforce needs to develop competencies in team-based care, working across disciplines and sectors to tackle the social and environmental determinants of health. Transforming the health care system to provide culturally competent care is critical to advance health equity. It is crucial that the health care workforce receive education and training in cultural competence. Betancourt et al. (2003) define a culturally competent health care system as “one that acknowledges and incorporates—at all levels—the importance of culture, assessment of cross-cultural relations, vigilance toward the dynamics that result from cultural differences, expansion of cultural knowledge, and adaptation of services to meet culturally unique needs” (p. 294). The importance of culturally competent care is also relevant to efforts to increase patient- and family-centered care, as “cultural competence enhances the ability of health systems and providers to address individual patients’ preferences and goals” (Saha et al., 2008). The wide diversity of household backgrounds—cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic—and the expected demographic changes that will result in successively more diverse future generations make it important that the health care system have capacity to understand and respond to cultural variations in health practices and understanding (see Box 5-3 on the role of doulas and Box 5-4 on the role of nurse-midwives and midwives in prenatal and postnatal care and culturally appropriate care). Although more providers entering the workforce have had cultural training and speak languages other than English than a generation ago, many households still face difficulties accessing culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate care. Access to such subspecialty care may be particularly challenging, especially diagnostic and long-term care services that address cultural and language needs. For example, young children with ASD often need specialized therapists who work intensively on communication with the child and between the child and family. A Spanish-speaking family, however, can find it difficult to identify a Spanish- speaking therapist (Dabney et al., 2015) BOX 5-3 The Role of Doulas in Advancing Health Equity A doula is “a trained professional who provides continuous physical, emotional, and informational support to a mother before, during, and shortly after childbirth to help her achieve the healthiest, most satisfying experience possible” (DONA International, n.d.). Doulas receive training on providing support during birth and/or the postpartum periods but do not perform medical or clinical tasks. For information on midwives, who receive medical and clinical training, see Box 5-4. Evidence suggests that supportive care and services from doulas improves maternal and infant outcomes in the prenatal through postpartum periods. A joint consensus statement from the ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine stated that “one of the most effective tools to improve labor and delivery outcomes is the continuous presence of support personnel, such as a doula” (Caughey et al., 2014). Similarly, a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of 26 studies found that women who received continuous support during childbirth, including from doulas, had improved maternal and infant outcomes (Bohren et al., 2017). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-31 Importantly, doulas of color can provide culturally appropriate support to women of color that is sensitive to the historical injustices experienced by people of color within the health care system. Doulas can help to bridge the divide between patients and their health care providers by assisting patients with health literacy and social support, thus improving both access to health care services and the quality of care (Kozhimannil et al., 2016). Providing such care is critically important to address the significant disparities in pregnancy outcomes in women of color, particularly African American women, in the United States. Increasing access to culturally sensitive supports for women of color, such as doula care, is essential for decreasing health inequities. However, women of color are often least likely to have access to such care and services because doulas are rarely covered by insurance (Thich, 2016). An approach to increase access to doula care is a community-based doula program, which emerging evidence has found to be effective in improving health outcomes for women of color. Administered by HRSA and MCHB, the Community-Based Doula Program is a model that provides culturally appropriate peer-to-peer support based on the life course approach during the perinatal and early postpartum periods. The program serves women and families in communities with high levels of health and social needs (the majority of participants are black or Hispanic, and a small number are from tribal communities), and the program’s community-based doulas “are of and from the communities being served” (HealthConnect One, 2014). Data findings of the program include rates of breastfeeding, including breastfeeding duration, that are higher than those documented by the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System (PRAMS) and breastfeeding goals of Healthy People 2020 as well as C-section rates that are lower than those documented by PRAMS. Assuring equity calls for strategies to diminish cultural and linguistic barriers, through training and increased recruitment of health care providers from culturally diverse communities. It also requires explicit training on eliminating implicit bias and unequal treatment in health care. Unequal preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care based on race, ethnicity and SES has been well documented (Brett et al., 1994; Kogan et al., 1994; Kotelchuck et al., 1997). In a randomized trial of 524 providers who were shown videos depicting patients of varying sociodemographic characteristics, providers were more likely to recommend levonorgestrel intrauterine contraception for low-SES Latina and African American women than low SES white women (Dehlendorf et al., 2010). Patients from low-SES backgrounds were judged to be significantly more likely than patients from high-SES backgrounds to have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and an unintended pregnancy and were also judged to be less knowledgeable. An analysis of data from the National Maternal and Infant Health Survey demonstrated that black women were less likely than white women to receive advice from their prenatal care providers about smoking cessation and alcohol use (Kogan et al., 1994). Stereotyping and implicit bias on the part of health care providers are factors that may play a role (ACOG, 2015). Advancing health equity in birth and child health outcomes will require addressing implicit bias and unequal treatment in health care (see Chapters 7 and 8 for more on implicit bias training). BOX 5-4 The Role of Midwives in Advancing Health Equity Midwives, defined here as certified nurse-midwives, certified midwives, and midwives whose education and licensure meet the International Confederation of Midwives Global Standards for Midwifery Education (AAP Committee on Fetus and Newborn and ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice, 2017), are health care professionals who provide low-risk women with services that include primary care; gynecologic and family planning services; care during the preconception, pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum periods; and care of the healthy newborn during the first 28 days of life (American College of Nurse-Midwives, 2012). Medicare and Medicaid reimburse for care provided by PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-32 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS midwives in all U.S. states, and private insurance reimburses for their services in most states (American College of Nurse-Midwives, 2012). The midwifery model of care tends to allow more time for patient interactions, with a holistic approach to health behavior education (Palmer et al., 2010; Vonderheid et al., 2007). In addition, African American women participating in CenteringPregnancy, a form of group prenatal care predominantly facilitated by midwives (see Box 5-5 for more information), have a significantly reduced preterm birth rate (Carter et al., 2016; Ickovics et al., 2007; Picklesimer et al., 2012). Full integration of midwives into the health care system may provide an opportunity to both improve pregnancy outcomes and reduce health disparities. A recent study by Vedam et al. (2018) measured midwifery and health care integration with the Midwifery Integration Scoring System (MISS) and found an association between states with higher MISS scores and lower rates of infant mortality (including by race), cesarean section, preterm birth, and LBW infants than states with lower MISS scores. Most existing training programs offer some, albeit limited, exposure to training in cultural diversity and how culture influences health care and behaviors. In a few settings, clinicians in training learn skills in team care, although integrated training programs are rare. Case Western Reserve University is starting a new program where medical students, nursing students, and others will train together in a new multischool training and research building. All of these areas (cultural and linguistic diversity, SDOH, MBH, and team experience) merit increased attention in medical training in general and in pediatrics specifically. There is increased recognition that health care providers need to be not only well versed in medical interventions to treat illness but effective advocates in addressing the broader factors contributing to unequal access to services and treatment and impacting efforts to achieve health equity. Improving Quality of Care Based on its review of the evidence the committee concludes: Conclusion 5-3: Strategies to improve the quality of preconception, prenatal, and child health care have included developing and implementing new measures, including for adversity and social determinants, along with efforts to strengthen the training of the health care workforce to better understand diversity and implicit bias and to address equity in health care. To improve the quality of care provided in the preconception through early childhood periods, the committee recommends: Recommendation 5-2: To expand accountability and improve the quality of preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care: • Public and private payers should include new metrics of child and family health and well-being that assess quality using a holistic view of health and health equity. Federal, state, and other agencies, along with private foundations and philanthropies that invest in research, should support the development and implementation of new measures of accountability, including key drivers of health, such as social determinants, along with measuring variations by key subgroups to determine disparities; PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-33 • Public and private payers, including the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Bureau of Primary Care and Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and perinatal and pediatric quality collaboratives, should expand the use of continuous quality improvement, learning communities, payment for performance, and other strategies to enhance accountability; and • Health-care-related workforce development entities should expand efforts to increase diversity, inclusion, and equity in the health care workforce, including diversity-intensive outreach, mentoring, networking, and leadership development for underrepresented faculty and trainees. Workforce development (bullet 3) will need to be addressed by several entities, including the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and specialty boards, professional schools, training programs, funders of graduate education in health professions (CMS, HRSA, and others), and teaching hospitals, including children’s hospitals. Metrics for accountability include: • Social determinants and risk measures: Measures that reflect whether risks were identified early and whether families received needed help, with key drivers of health inequities that lie beyond traditional clinical purview but profoundly impact their health, such as housing instability, food security, and exposure to adversity or trauma. • Cross-sector developmental measures: Measures that move beyond common indicators of child development, such as immunizations and management of acute infections or common chronic conditions, to address an expanded set of clinical indicators crucial for children and caretakers, including MBH. Measures should reflect healthy life course development, such as language at age three, school readiness at age five, reading proficiency at age eight, and high school graduation rates, as well as indicators of concern (need for special education, substance use, executive functioning, major behavior disorders). • Disparities as explicit measurement domains: Measures that hold providers accountable not just for delivering services but also for improving outcomes and closing gaps in outcomes among key populations or subgroups. Adjusting quality measures for the social and clinical complexity of patient populations. INNOVATIVE DELIVERY MODELS AND FINANCING CARE Most preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care is delivered through face-to- face office visits. For many families, but especially low-income families, this often requires taking unpaid leave from work, arranging child care and transportation, and waiting an hour or two for a 5- to 30-minute visit (Lewis et al., 2017). Preconception care is usually one short visit, with no consistency in what is accomplished during that visit, and a large percentage of families do not even receive this minimal level of care (Poels et al., 2016). Current prenatal care guidelines continue to recommend 14 or more prenatal visits during pregnancy, despite a lack of evidence supporting this number. Most visits consist of a spot blood pressure check and urine dip, a cursory auscultation of fetal heart tone and fundal height measurement, and a hurried conversation with a provider who, despite best intentions, often does not have sufficient time or PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-34 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS training to educate patients about self-care let alone address their psychosocial concerns or occupational and environmental exposures (Lu, 2019). Similarly, postpartum care is usually one short visit (two after cesarean delivery), which consists of a cursory review of problems, a pelvic exam, and an often hurried discussion of contraceptive options, if the latter happens at all. Pediatric care also focuses on assessment of common issues, along with immunizations and other preventive services, in short office visits with limited time for extensive screening and counseling. Nonetheless, the multiple scheduled health supervision visits during the prenatal and early childhood periods can serve to connect families with trusted health advisors. For young children who have frequent pediatric care visits in the first years of life, health care provides a main entry point to health and many other services that can support the promotion of health for preschool children and their families (Garg et al., 2015; Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative, n.d.; Stille et al., 2010). In most communities, the current configuration of services does not take full advantage of this opportunity for maximizing collaborations across sectors and implementing concurrent interventions to strengthen children and families. Concerns regarding increasing health care costs, health care provider availability, dissatisfaction with wait times, and the minimal opportunity for education and support associated with the individual care model have given rise to interest in alternative models of care. For children, a system of care designed to prevent and treat common infectious diseases faces a population whose health reflects infections less than noninfectious chronic conditions. Growing epidemics of nonfatal chronic conditions, especially MBH conditions (Halfon et al., 2012; Houtrow et al., 2014), much greater understanding of the SDOH, increasing diversity in the sociocultural makeup of the U.S. population, and the tremendous growth in the science of early childhood development, all call for new strategies and structures for delivering and financing preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care, including efforts to address inequities (Perrin and Dewitt, 2011). Social, economic, and environmental determinants of health generally affect the health of children and families more than usual medical treatments, and traditional ways of delivering health care have relatively limited impact on early childhood growth, development, and health. Some innovative ideas being tested in prenatal and well-baby care are group visits, multidisciplinary teams, strategies to link health care with other community resources, and increased use of new technologies (see section on the use of technology below). Group Visits Group visits and innovative designs that bring patients with similar needs together for health care encounters (face-to-face or virtually), increase the time available for the educational component of the encounter, improve efficiency, and reduce repetition (ACOG, 2018a). The group visit model is being tested for prenatal care because group visits are designed to enhance patient education while providing opportunities for social support and retaining the risk screening and physical assessment of individual care (ACOG, 2018a). In some settings, the groups continue meeting for postpartum and/or newborn care sessions. This model is especially promising in the reconceptualization of postpartum care, which would move away from a single clinical encounter toward more comprehensive, ongoing support for the postpartum transition. While initial observational studies (Thielen, 2012) and a large RCT (Ickovics et al., 2007) found significant improvement in perinatal outcomes in group visit models, a more recent Cochrane review (Catling et al., 2015) and a meta-analysis of 10 observational studies and four RCTs (Carter et al., 2016) found no significant difference in preterm birth, LBW, breastfeeding, or neonatal intensive care (NICU) admissions. However, it should be noted that while there was PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-35 no overall difference in outcomes between women in traditional and group prenatal care, black women in group prenatal care showed a 41 percent reduction in preterm births in the largest RCT (Ickovics et al., 2007) and the meta-analysis, respectively. CenteringPregnancy is a model of group prenatal care that has demonstrated some promising but mixed findings in improving maternal and birth outcomes, including decreasing disparities by race and ethnicity (see Box 5- 5). CenteringParenting is a similar innovative model of group postpartum care that brings together a cohort of 6–7 mother-infant dyads for one year postpartum (Bloomfield and Rising, 2013); its impact on outcomes remains to be established. Box 5-5 CenteringPregnancy: Promising Modela CenteringPregnancy provides group prenatal care to women in a supportive, educational, and interactive environment. The model was developed and is implemented by the Centering Healthcare Institute, a Boston-based nonprofit started in the 1990s that works with health care providers to implement group care models (its three models are CenteringPregnancy, CenteringParenting, and CenteringDiabetes) in more than 585 locations, including large health systems, across the country. The CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care model enables participants to spend more time with their provider and to learn, discuss with, and receive support from other pregnant women in a group environment (Centering Healthcare Institute, n.d.-2). In addition to each participant having individual time with their provider for physical health assessments, groups of 8–10 women due at about the same time participate in a curriculum of 10 90-minute or 2-hour sessions (in line with the recommended schedule of 10 prenatal visits) that includes provider- and staff-facilitated information sharing and discussion about health and nutrition, childbirth preparation, stress reduction, labor and delivery, breastfeeding, relationships, and parenting (Centering Healthcare Institute, n.d.-2). Participants are active in their own care by taking their own weight and blood pressure and recording their own health data, and they are women of varying age, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic background (Centering Healthcare Institute, n.d.-2). The program aims for participants to form meaningful and supportive relationships with other participants, many of whom continue their participation with CenteringParenting’s model of family-centered well-child care (Centering Healthcare Institute, n.d.-1). Research shows that CenteringPregnancy has led to improved birth outcomes, including significantly lower risk of preterm birth, LBW or very LBW infant, infant small for gestational size, and fetal death (Chen et al., 2017; Cunningham et al., 2019; Gareau et al., 2016; Ickovics et al., 2016; Tanner-Smith et al., 2014). Ickovics et al. (2007) also found that participants were less likely to have poorer-quality prenatal care, were more knowledgeable and better prepared for childbirth, had greater satisfaction with their care, and were more likely to breastfeed than those receiving individual care (Ickovics et al., 2007). In addition, Gareau et al. (2016) estimate that South Carolina saved nearly $2.3 million with a $1.7 million investment in implementing the model, which achieved an average savings of $22,667 for every premature birth prevented, $29,627 for decreasing the rate of LBW, and $27,249 for decreasing the risk of a NICU stay. The model has also been shown to decrease disparities in birth outcomes by race and ethnicity. Picklesimer et al. (2012) found decreased disparities in the risk of preterm birth for black women relative to white and Hispanic women who participated in the program (Picklesimer et al., 2012). In addition, Ikovics et al. (2007) found that black women who participated had the largest decreases in preterm birth (Ickovics et al., 2007). Some studies and reviews have found no or mixed evidence of changes in the risk of preterm birth, LBW, prenatal care costs, and delivery between group and prenatal care (Carter et al., 2016; Catling et al., 2015; Ickovics et al., 2007; Tanner-Smith et al., 2014). However, the authors of two reviews note that further research is needed due to the small number of studies and participants and the lack of high-quality studies (Carter et al., 2016; Catling et al., 2015). a The committee used selection criteria to identify examples of promising models highlighted in this report (see Appendix A for a list of the criteria). These examples all apply developmental science and aim to advance health equity during the preconception through early childhood periods. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-36 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Father and Partner Involvement As discussed in Chapter 4, fathers can play an important role in their children’s development, and the health system could do better in engaging fathers’ involvement. Several authors have suggested innovative approaches to strengthen engagement through preconception (Kotelchuck and Lu, 2017), prenatal (CPIPO, 2010), postpartum, and pediatric care (Yogman and Garfield, 2016), though evidence of effectiveness is still lacking. Kotelchuck and Lu (2017) proposed a research agenda for advancing the father’s role in preconception health, focusing on three priority domains: increasing the basic epidemiology and risk factor knowledge base; implementing and evaluating men’s preconception health/fatherhood interventions (addressing clinical health care, psychological resiliency/maturation, and SDOH); and fostering more fatherhood health policy and advocacy research. The Commission on Paternal Involvement in Pregnancy Outcomes (CPIPO) proposed 40 research, practice, and policy recommendations for strengthening fathers’ engagement, including the development of “father-friendly” hospital settings, practices, and policies (CPIPO, 2010). The Commission also called out the importance of developing more effective methods of recruitment and retention of men in communities with high levels of poor pregnancy outcomes in research. Similarly, Yogman and Garfield (2016) pointed out the important role of child health providers in supporting and encouraging father involvement, with special attention to fathers’ involvement across childhood ages and the influence of fathers’ physical and mental health on their children. Given the growing diversity of families, similar attention is needed to engaging partners of all types across the health system. Multidisciplinary Teams Another growing innovation is the sharp increase in multidisciplinary teams delivering care to children and families, including team members from sectors other than health care. Teams in primary care and obstetrical care settings take diverse forms, but they all reflect a dedicated move from care provided by physicians alone to much greater involvement of nonphysician providers in ongoing care (Halfon et al., 2014). Team care has grown from early models of physician–nurse practitioner collaboration dating back half a century. Many subspecialty programs, for adults and children, have long had teams providing care, with substantial documentation of their effectiveness (Katkin et al., 2017; Lahiri et al., 2016). Typical elements of a primary care team address (1) chronic care management (especially for the high- prevalence conditions other than mental health)—often with a nurse or nurse practitioner having main responsibilities, (2) mental and behavioral health—often through a colocated mental health professional (see below), (3) linking families with community resources (e.g., through a staff member knowledgeable about community benefits and resources or through medical-legal partnerships [MLPs]), and (4) helping families assess readiness for becoming parents and building their child-raising skills (e.g., programs to plan for parenthood, parenting programs in health care offices, connecting with home visiting programs, or encouraging families to read to children at an early age). Over the past few decades, nurses have played increasingly broad roles, including prevention and care management. Few teams include all these components, but the growth of team care has addressed all of them in different models. Models that incorporate evidence supporting teams in health care settings to develop multidisciplinary care coordination programs involving families, social workers, paraprofessionals or peer workers, and community partners have evolved over time to help families of high-risk children be more proactive at managing health risks (Van Cleave et al., PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-37 2015). Programs such as the Parent-Focused Redesign for Encounters, Newborns to Toddlers (PARENT) have used health educator coaches for parents to deliver well-child care that incorporates social risk screening and referral, with developmental and behavioral assessments (Coker et al., 2016). Efforts to use team-based care (coupled with telehealth mechanisms) in part reflect the recognition that such changes will help to address more effectively the many factors contributing to the health of patients and communities. These changes recognize that enhancing health care practices with personnel knowledgeable and skillful in helping families access a breadth of community services will address disparities. Integrating mental health and behavioral health services into primary care is a widespread innovation that usually involves having a mental health professional (e.g., a master’s level psychologist, social worker, or psychiatric nurse specialist) colocated in the practice (Ader et al., 2015; Stancin and Perrin, 2014; Team Up for Children, n.d.). One such program embeds mental health workers in several community health center pediatric practices so that they can see patients jointly or transfer them easily and immediately.11 These personnel both see patients directly and help to train the primary care practitioners to hone their own mental health skills. In another model that has experienced much growth (now in over 30 states), primary care clinicians can access telephone backup services that support their in-office care of mental health problems (Sarvet et al., 2010; Straus and Sarvet, 2014). Occasionally, backup providers will see patients directly for 1–2 visits, although the majority of services provided are either directly to the primary care provider or by referral to community resources for ongoing mental health care (e.g., community CBT providers).12 Most studies of programs that integrate behavioral health care services into primary care to address the increased prevalence of mental health diagnoses, early childhood developmental conditions, and substance use disorders in families have shown substantial promise (AHRQ, n.d.-2; Balasubramanian et al., 2017; Kwan and Nease, 2013). Embedded programs that directly address SDOH focus on having onsite professional social workers or other staff who provide in-person services or navigation to families (Fierman et al., 2016) or who help families find needed community resources. Several established programs do this kind of work, including the following (see also Box 5-6 for information on another initiative, Pediatrics Supporting Parents): • The Health Leads program uses patient advocates to meet with families, guide them to community resources, and integrate SDOH care into the routines of clinical care (Garg et al., 2012) and has been shown to improve child health outcomes in a randomized trial (Gottlieb et al., 2016). • Reach out and Read (ROR) is a practice embedded program in pediatric care settings encouraging parent–child interaction and literacy development and has been shown to result in higher language proficiency in at-risk children (Mendelsohn et al., 2001). • The PARENT program uses coaches for parents to expand the capacity of providers to address family social risks. An RCT of the program showed improvements in use of developmental screening and other preventive care and reduced ED visits early in life (Coker et al., 2016). • HealthySteps [with sites in more than 20 states, DC, and Puerto Rico (Zero to Three, n.d.-1)] combines practice-based services, using early child educators or nurses with early childhood training, with community linkages focused on newborn care, safety, and developmental issues. This program has shown some evidence for impacts on 11 For more information, see https://www.teamupforchildren.org (accessed May 9, 2019). 12 CURES Act and expansion of phone back-up programs PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-38 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS parent–child communication (Minkovitz et al., 2007) (see Box 5-8 for more on HealthySteps). • MLPs assist families with the legal challenges that often go hand-in-hand with unmet needs related to social determinants and have been shown to improve subjective well- being and positive impact health care use (Klein et al., 2013; Sandel et al., 2010) (see Chapter 6 for more information on MLPs). • Help Me Grow is a coalition of 28 states, communities, and individuals invested in ambitious and resourceful early childhood systems that optimally serve all families and children. It is designed to help states and communities leverage existing resources to identify children in at-risk environments, link families to community-based services, and help families support healthy development of their children, including through child health provider outreach (Help Me Grow, 2017). • Filming Interactions to Nurture Development (FIND) is a video coaching program that aims to strengthen positive interactions between caregivers and children to reinforce developmentally supportive interactions, or what’s known as “serve and return.” Early evaluation studies show participation in FIND Fathers project was associated with improvements in parenting stress, father involvement, and child behavior problems; other evaluations are ongoing (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, n.d.). BOX 5-6 Identifying Strategies to Support Parents in Clinical Settings Pediatrics Supporting Parents is a multiphase initiative supported by a consortium of foundations that is exploring opportunities in the context of pediatric well-child visits to promote children’s healthy social and emotional development. Phase 1: The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) has identified evidence-informed, scalable strategies to improve social and emotional health, the parent–child bond, and parental mental health (an important mediator of social-emotional development and the parent–child bond) during well-child visits. This includes a study of how strategies may differ with respect to pediatric practice or community setting. Phase 2: The National Institute for Children’s Health Quality (NICHQ) has assessed the findings from CSSP and uses them to inform a learning community of pediatric primary care practices who will pilot the strategies and make recommendations for scaling them up at a national level. Based on the findings from the report Promoting Young Children’s (Ages 0–3), Socioemotional Development in Primary Care (NICHQ, 2016), this initiative has adopted the framework of four “design elements” of strategies to engage parents: (1) assessment, (2) education, (3) modeling, and (4) connection (NICHQ, 2016). The initiative’s theory of change identifies these design elements as contributors to the primary outcomes of interest (i.e., social-emotional health, parent–child bond, parental mental health). CSSP employed a multistep approach and applied a robust set of criteria (see Appendix C of CSSP, 2018 for more information) to identify 13 evidence-informed and promising programs to explore further through site visits. The organizing framework for these programs identified 10 important areas of strategy: 1. Anticipatory guidance 2. Screening, connection, and access 3. Health-related resources 4. Curriculum based courses for parents/caregivers PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-39 5. Observations 6. Group well-child visits 7. Mental health consultation 8. Physician extenders 9. Home visiting 10. Trainings/CQI SOURCE: CSSP, 2018. The growth of teams also supports expanded attention to social, economic and environmental determinants of health among children and families. Team-based care helps practices encourage families to share information more effectively, as different team members focus on different aspects of a family’s health and health determinants. Strong community knowledge and linkages help these efforts succeed, and some practices embed community health workers and other laypeople with lived experience, community expertise, and inherent trust among community members. Here too, the value of team-based community-oriented care has many advantages over traditional physician-centered practice. Community health workers know community resources (e.g., housing, food, employment) and can assist families in getting the help they need (e.g., resources to find improved housing for a child with asthma who wheezes because of mold in her apartment instead of repeated emergency department [ED] visits for nebulizer treatments). Enhanced Services to Identify and Address Social, Economic, and Environmental Determinants of Health There has been increased recognition of the impact of adverse social, economic, and environmental determinants on health outcomes over the past several decades. Federal and state public health efforts have moved to enhance care to better identify and address these factors (Lu et al., 2010). For prenatal care, enhanced care models have been designed to deliver coordinated, augmented, enabling, enriched, comprehensive, or “wraparound” prenatal care services— particularly for low-income populations. Enhanced prenatal care typically refers to routine prenatal care visits combined with ancillary services that may entail outreach efforts, counseling about the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for WIC, case management, social work, psychosocial counseling, social support, health promotion/education, transportation, home visiting, and follow-up services to facilitate the ongoing use of the prenatal services offered (Alexander and Kotelchuck, 2001). The Comprehensive Perinatal Service Program (CPSP) enhances prenatal care with nutrition counseling, social services, and health education (Korenbrot et al., 1995). Most federally funded Healthy Start programs enhance prenatal care with care coordination, case management, and home visiting (Badura et al., 2008). In his systematic review of three types of enhanced prenatal care—home visiting programs, comprehensive-care programs, and preterm-prevention programs—Fiscella (1995) failed to find conclusive evidence of effectiveness of enhanced prenatal care for preventing adverse birth outcomes. It should be noted, however, that Fiscella examined the impact of enhanced prenatal care on only three immediate birth outcomes—perinatal death, LBW, and preterm birth; the impact of enhanced prenatal care on other short- and long-term health outcomes for children and families remains largely unexplored. A study of the Illinois Family case Management (FCM) PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-40 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS program, another enhanced prenatal care program, did find that participation resulted in a lower LBW rate (Silva et al., 2006). Health care providers have explored three basic approaches to the challenge of meeting social needs outside of their practices: (1) home visiting programs connected to the practice, (2) screening for risks and referring to community programs, and (3) community-level interventions. 1) Home visiting programs connected to the practice. Home visiting has a long history of effective programs for young families (based on early experiments in Ithaca and Hawaii); nurses or other trained personnel make home visits for young families, in some cases during pregnancy and in all cases in the first few years of a child’s life. For a more detailed discussion of home visiting, see Chapter 4. Some programs are closely integrated with health care providers; others work independently but share information. The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) program has shown evidence of reducing child abuse and neglect (Macmillan et al., 2009) with home visiting, for example. Some of the targeted programs that focus on specific needs, such as child abuse, child neglect, or LBW babies, have improved health outcomes in high-risk families (Avellar and Supplee, 2013; Radcliffe et al., 2013; Rushton et al., 2015). In the past few years, Congress has supported much growth in home visiting programs, allocating new funds to allow expanding the programs and the households covered. For an example of a community-based nurse home visiting program that has demonstrated promising findings in improving the health and well-being of children and their families, see Box 5-7. BOX 5-7 Family Connects Durham: Promising Modela Family Connects Durham (formerly Durham Connects) is a nurse home visiting program offered at no cost to families of newborns in Durham County, North Carolina. The program serves all families with newborns regardless of income or SES, and its mission is to “increase child well-being by bridging the gap between parent needs and community resources” (Center for Child and Family Health, n.d.). First implemented in 2008, the program was developed by the Duke Endowment and the founding director of the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy, Kenneth Dodge, in conjunction with community partners, with the goal to prevent child maltreatment and support all children and families in Durham, regardless of SES, with a model that could be replicated in other communities. The program maintains a commitment to community engagement through its Community Advisory Board, which includes representation from local agencies and is a collaborative effort of the Center for Child & Family Health, Duke Center for Child and Family Policy, Durham County Department of Health, and Durham County Department of Social Services. In addition to local grants, the program’s funders include the Duke Endowment, Durham County Government, and United Way of the Greater Triangle. A registered nurse with clinical and/community health experience visits, typically about 3 weeks (but up to 12 weeks) postpartum, to provide a weight and health check for the newborn and ensure that the mother is recovering from childbirth. Nurses may also provide information and community-based resources on topics such as breastfeeding, child care, postpartum depression, and social isolation. Families may be contacted 1 month after the home visit to ensure that the community resources and supports discussed during the visit were obtained. In addition, pediatricians, obstetricians, and family practitioners within the community partner with the program to share information and improve patient care. The program has Spanish-speaking nurses and matches families with nurses who speak their preferred language whenever possible. Nurses neither request nor report families’ U.S. residency status. In two RCTs, Dodge et al. found that by the time the infant was 6 or 12 months old, families who received a nurse home visit through the program had greater community connections, better use of higher-quality child care, higher-quality parenting behaviors, enhanced home environments, PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-41 improved mother mental health, and reduced emergency medical care for infants (Dodge et al., 2013, 2014). Further, it is estimated that cities of similar size to Durham that average about 3,187 births per year could save about $6.7 million in community health care costs during the first 2 years of an infant’s life if $2.2 million was invested each year in nurse home visiting (i.e., it is estimated that the program saves $3.02 in emergency health care costs for every $1 it spends) (Center for Child and Family Health, n.d.). a The committee used selection criteria to identify examples of promising models highlighted in this report (see Appendix A for a list of the criteria). These examples all apply developmental science and aim to advance health equity during the preconception through early childhood periods. 2) Screening in the practice and referral to a community partner. WE CARE, a program based in pediatric primary care and serving low-income families, combines a screening tool and referrals to community resources for at-risk families who want assistance with social needs; the results from RCTs showed that families in the program were more likely to connect to social determinants resources, had fewer unaddressed needs, were more likely to be employed, and were less likely to live in a shelter at follow-up compared to usual (Garg et al., 2007, 2015). Other pediatric-based “screen and refer” programs, relying on either trained family specialists or volunteer community navigators, have shown similarly promising impacts on outcomes such as connection to social needs, increased immunization rates, and reduced early life ED use in randomized studies (Gottlieb et al., 2016; Sege et al., 2015). A range of more focused pediatric-based programs addressing specific social needs through screening and intervention have also shown promising results in high-quality studies, including programs focused on improving habitability for children with asthma (Krieger et al., 2005), the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) program focused on reducing intrafamily stress/violence and improving food security (Dubowitz et al., 2011, 2012; Feigelman et al., 2011), clinic-based referrals to Head Start (Silverstein et al., 2004), and StreetCred, which helps families get benefits they are eligible for (e.g., nutrition programs, EITC, SSI) (Marcil et al., 2018). Programs have also successfully deployed community health workers to do home assessments and education and reduced asthma triggers among children (Campbell et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2006). Other community collaboration models compile resource directories and connect people to publicly available benefits, including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as well as to community resources or private programs that can assist at-risk families (Henize et al., 2015). Primary care providers have worked in this space for some time, with a growing body of evidence around effective programs and interventions. Several State Medicaid agencies have also begun to test promising models to incentivize providers in their efforts to address SDOH (including early detection of adversity and trauma experienced by children and their caregivers), greater integration with other community providers, and MBH integration (Van Buren, 2018). These innovative efforts together promise ways to strengthen preconception, prenatal, and pediatric care, help it move to team care and improve use of new technologies, and strengthen integration with other community services to enhance child health and well-being. North Carolina has developed an ambitious Early Childhood Action Plan, which has as goals healthy children who are safe and nurtured, learning, and ready to succeed (NCDHHS, n.d.). The plan builds on the science of early childhood and brain development and aims to address health equity. New York’s First Thousand Days program includes statewide early home visiting, PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-42 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS expansion of the CenteringPregnancy program (see Box 5-5), a requirement that managed care plans to have a child-specific quality agenda, and data system development to enhance cross- sector collaboration (United Hospital Fund, 2018). 3) Community-level interventions. Lastly, addressing SDOH needs to encompass improved, collaborative systems for addressing medical and psychosocial risk factors at not only the individual child/family level but also the community level. Community-based parent support programs can provide resources through parent and child play groups, parenting information and support classes, and connecting families to medical or child care services (Trivette and Dunst, 2014). (For more information on supports for parents and caregivers, see Chapter 4.) The goal of these programs is to improve the health, well-being, and development of children by improving parents’ caregiving skills and providing parents with adequate social supports and services (Goodson, 2014). Such programs are most effective when they are “family-centered as opposed to professionally-centered” and “capacity-building as opposed to dependency forming” (Trivette and Dunst, 2014). In pediatrics, family-centered care is care that is “based on the understanding that the family is the child’s primary source of strength and support and that the child’s and family’s perspectives and information are important in clinical decision making” (AAP Committee on Hospital Care, 2003) (p. 691). Family-centered care can lead to improved child health and behavioral outcomes (Dunst and Trivette, 2009; Dunst et al., 2007; Kuo et al., 2012), and it is vital that community-based programs connect families to medical services where family-centered care is standard. The 2016 report Parenting Matters: Supporting Parents of Children Ages 0–8 describes specific elements of effective programs, which include (1) parents as partners, (2) tailoring interventions to parent and child needs, (3) service integration and interagency collaborative care, (4) peer support, (5) trauma-informed services, (6) cultural relevance, and (7) inclusion of fathers (NASEM, 2016). HealthySteps is a community-based pediatric primary care model that prioritizes the role of parents and caregivers as active participants in the care of their children (see Box 5-8 for more information on HealthySteps). Several initiatives have effectively coordinated health, social services, family support, and educational services, such as the Harlem Children’s Zone (Harlem Children's Zone, n.d.) and the multisite Best Babies Zone initiative (Best Babies Zone, n.d.). A recent National Academies report, Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity, documents several such place-based, community-level initiatives (2017). BOX 5-8 HealthySteps: Promising Modela HealthySteps is a team-based, family-centered pediatric primary care model that aims to improve the health, well-being, and school readiness of infants and toddlers in low-income families. The cornerstone of the model is a child development professional, known as a HealthySteps Specialist (HSS), who connects with families during well-child visits as part of the primary care team. The HSS supports families by coordinating care and screenings, offering guidance and referrals to local agencies and programs (e.g., MBH services for maternal depression, food banks and legal clinics for food and housing insecurity), and providing on-demand aid, including through electronic communication and home visiting, between primary care visits. Infants are enrolled in the program at their newborn visit (or as early as possible before their 6-month visit), and families may continue in the program until the 3-year-old well-child visit at most sites and until the child is 5 years old at some sites (MacLaughlin et al., 2017). The program is a national network of more than 140 pediatric and family practices sites in 20 states, DC, and Puerto Rico (Zero to Three, n.d.-1) that has served more than 37,000 children ages 0–3, including refugee children (Buchholz et al., 2016). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-43 The program was analyzed through a 15-site national evaluation in 2003 (Guyer et al., 2003), and several single-site evaluations have also taken place. Findings from the evaluations suggest that the model can help to achieve improved outcomes in child health and development, breastfeeding and early nutrition, connections to resources, child safety, parenting knowledge and practices, parent and physician satisfaction, maternal depression, and early literary and school readiness (Zero to Three, 2017). For example, Minkovitz et al. (2007) conducted interviews with mothers when their children were 5.5 years of age and found that families who participated in the program were more satisfied with their care, more likely to remain at their original practice, less likely to use severe discipline, more likely to report concerns with their children’s behavior, and more likely to have their children read books. Such findings indicate that the program’s positive effects, while modest, may continue after the intervention has ended. Further evaluation of the program’s recent innovations and for specific outcomes is ongoing (Zero to Three, n.d.-2). a The committee used selection criteria to identify examples of promising models highlighted in this report (see Appendix A for a list of the criteria). These examples all apply developmental science and aim to advance health equity during the preconception through early childhood periods. In addition to knowing the community to better direct patients to resources, health care institutions can treat surrounding neighborhoods as “patients” and intervene more directly in the SDOH. In one such case study, the Healthy Neighborhoods, Healthy Families Initiative, a pediatric center invested in a multifaceted housing intervention in the surrounding neighborhood and significantly improved vacancy rates, though the health impacts on children in the area are still being evaluated (Kelleher et al., 2018). Similar, a community health center in Wisconsin partnered with urban planners to integrate health into sustainable land-use planning practices in an effort to shape overall community health outcomes (McAvoy et al., 2004). Health systems have also begun to participate in larger cross-sector efforts and partnerships predicated on the principles of collective impact, such as Accountable Communities of Health (ACH), which bring together a wide range of partners from across sectors to collectively address the SDOH. These efforts are nascent, however, and high-quality evidence on the health impacts of the ACH model or similar initiatives is not yet available. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a request for proposals to address similar opportunities at the child health level, with a strong emphasis on MBH and building community coalitions to improve outcomes based on social determinants criteria (CMS, 2019). Another promising example is the redesign of the federal Healthy Start program in 2015 to place greater emphasis on improving women’s health before and between pregnancies and across the life course, strengthening families, including increasing father engagement, and addressing SDOH through the collective impact model (whereby Healthy Start grantees serve as the backbone organizations in facilitating coordination and collaboration with social services, housing, economic and community development, and other nonhealth sectors to prevent infant mortality in the community). Results from more rigorous evaluation of the Healthy Start program are expected to be available in 2019 (National Institute for Children's Health Quality, n.d.). Embracing New Technologies Technological advances may help to transform the model of brief, episodic visits in a busy practice, especially in underresourced settings, by improving communication and care in several ways. A health care system redesign that better leverages eHealth technologies and social networking in innovative ways can enable more effective health promotion than current short PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-44 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS visits. With many technological opportunities emerging to implement such a redesign, an important consideration is that machine learning algorithms may suffer from the same biases reflected in the data on which they are built, such that their use in health care may inadvertently perpetuate and even exacerbate existing health disparities (Char et al., 2018; Gianfrancesco et al., 2018). Research is needed to identify strategies to minimize such biases as new technologies are implemented more widely in health care and other sectors (Turner Lee, 2018). Increasingly, health care providers are experimenting with telehealth strategies to augment their services and make them more accessible and convenient for families (Burke et al., 2015). Most used and studied in the area of providing mental health services remotely, telehealth has expanded substantially in the management of many chronic diseases of children and adults. New technologies allow better home/community monitoring of chronic disease and assessing symptoms and clinical signs over phone and video. Increased use of technological innovations might also improve access before and during pregnancy (Lu et al., 2010). Telehealth has been proposed as a way to help overcome many of the access barriers described earlier; women could be connected to their providers or specialists at anytime from anywhere. In addition, mHealth could make health promotion more accessible using simple mobile phone functions. Instead of bringing children and families to care, future research, practice, and policy initiatives to increase access should work on leveraging technological innovations to bring care to people in their homes and communities. Technological innovations, data sciences, and design thinking could be leveraged to redesign care around the needs of children and families and not just provider or clinic schedules. Technologies such as wearables, sensors, and lab-on-a-chip hold potential if they are proven to reliably and more continuously collect high-quality data that leads to improved care, better patient experiences, and more equitable health outcomes. Such data, collected from the comfort of a woman’s own home throughout her pregnancy, may include not only information on blood pressure or urine protein but also nutrition and physical activities, stress and sleep, and occupational, environmental, and other exposures that affect pregnancy outcomes and developmental origins of health and disease. With remote home monitoring, it is possible to continuously transmit data to the cloud, which, with the aid of AI and machine learning, could be used to improve predictive analytics. For preconception and prenatal care, this enhanced data might help triage women to different levels and components of care (e.g., routine follow-up, a call from a health educator, a home visitor, or an urgent appointment with a specialist). Instead of adhering to a uniform schedule, this approach might enable the frequency and content of preconception and prenatal visits to be determined by the specific changing needs and risks of each woman. Much work in childhood chronic disease, especially ASD and inflammatory bowel disease, similarly uses remote data to inform the need for office visits, rather than relying on routine follow-up periods. Linking these data with genomic, proteomic, metabolomic, psychosocial, and environmental data might help create a more precise risk profile that could inform the design of more personalized and precise interventions. New health care technologies can also enhance other communication between health care providers and their patients and markedly change the character and components of regular care, if these are high quality and well focused on characteristics most valued by households (Olson et al., 2018). Texting has been used to encourage healthy behaviors or advise on routine care (e.g., developmentally specific infant care advice, such as text4baby) (Evans et al., 2012). Texting has also improved low-income mothers’ adherence to immunizations for their children (Hofstetter et al., 2015; Stockwell et al., 2012). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-45 In addition, new and emerging technologies could play an important role in decreasing health inequities. Digital tools that leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning have the capacity to better identify social risk factors and improve systems of referral and follow-up for patients, when used with care and appropriate data sources (Padarthy et al., 2019). Advanced technological systems can help collect social risk screening data without relying so heavily on the point of care encounter, such as using patient-accessible electronic health records to pre- collect screening data in advance of clinic encounters. Indeed, not all screening need take place in clinical offices or visits at all—electronic practice gateways allow families to respond to questionnaires before or after visits, and texting can help encourage their participation. Head Start and other early childhood sites can also screen, and data sharing across communities can expedite care and response. In addition to ambulatory settings, some health systems have also implemented screening within EDs and trauma centers, especially around issues of violence and trauma, but evidence on the effectiveness within those settings is still preliminary (Juillard et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2013). Health information technology (health IT) can be used in a variety of other ways to augment health care services (e.g., promote patient education, assist with care coordination). Health IT in health care settings can also be used to support provider decision making and reduce errors. For example, reminders generated by electronic medical records (EMRs) can be used to encourage prenatal providers to prescribe progesterone to eligible patients with a documented history of spontaneous preterm delivery, to tell pediatric care providers about overdue immunizations, or to prompt follow-up on abnormal lab results, which can sometimes be missed in busy, understaffed clinics, especially in in underresourced communities. Health educational materials are accessible on the internet and through smartphone apps. For example, pregnant patients can find information about self-care from the internet, on websites such as USDA’s ChooseMyPlate.gov,13 which provide useful tools for nutritional self-assessment and education to pregnant women. Parents can access a variety of parenting resources and guidance regarding health and wellness for early childhood. Health IT can also help link clients to needed services, such as the Healthy City website,14 which maps community services in Los Angeles County down to the ZIP code and Census tract level using GIS technology. Financing to Support Innovation Payment arrangements for most health care services, from both public and private (mainly employer-sponsored health insurance) sources, rely on fee-for-service mechanisms, where payment reflects the number of services provided (e.g., health supervision visits, acute care visits, vaccinations) and cover only specified services. Fee-for-service arrangements provide few incentives for many of the changes that are critical to preparing health care providers to better deliver services to meet the needs of children, youth, and families, especially attention to mental/behavioral health, addressing SDOH, building community links, and incorporating telehealth. Traditional payment focuses on services, rather than on improving the health of populations. While providers recognize the many factors influencing health in prenatal and early childhood, traditional payment strategies maximize the numbers of patients per hour, often resulting in less time spent with each patient, without providing support for the longer visits 13 For more information, see https://www.choosemyplate.gov/nutritional-needs-during-pregnancy (accessed May 9, 2019. 14 For more information, see http://www.healthycity.org (accessed May 9, 2019). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-46 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS needed by some households (e.g., those facing a social determinant). Many health providers are already experimenting with new organizational structures to address changing needs and better respond to the main influences on health outcomes and well-being. Practices increasingly face the need to manage chronic conditions, address MBH, respond to cultural and linguistic diversity, and help with poverty and other SDOH, including efforts to address inequities in care and outcomes. These views reflect growing attention to child and family health in a holistic way. Health care providers are embracing team-based care models and new technologies (Katkin et al., 2017). Yet, current financing models prevent many health care providers from practicing in multidisciplinary teams; integrating health services with other community services; placing more emphasis on population health strategies; using technologies to enhance communication, assess risk, and extend care; and tailoring services to address equity and disparities. Optimizing care and support for postpartum families will also require policy changes. Presently, many insurers bundle reimbursement for prenatal care, delivery, and a single postpartum visit into one global fee, creating a disincentive for providers to provide comprehensive postpartum care or see patients more than once. Many women lose their pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage at 60 days postpartum. Payers often do not recognize the care provided to parents in pediatric and family medicine care settings. Thus, changes in the scope of postpartum care would require changes to reimbursement policies that support postpartum care as an ongoing process, rather than an isolated visit, such as unbundling from global obstetrics payment, pay-for-performance, and extension of Medicaid coverage for at least 12 months postpartum. Public and private payers in the past few years have shown interest in moving to alternative payment mechanisms, where providers increasingly take (financial) responsibility for a specified population. These arrangements can provide very different incentives for the organization and provision of health care services. For example, they allow more care to take place out of office through the expanded use of telemedicine and lowering use of high-cost services of limited value (Berwick et al., 2008; Dzau et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2018). The growth of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) follows this interest in changing incentives to improve care. Several children’s hospitals have developed ACOs (Makni et al., 2015; Perrin et al., 2017), although most of the growth in ACOs has come from large multispecialty programs with a main emphasis on practice transformation and cost savings for older populations. As noted previously, Medicaid plays a major role in insuring children, youth, and pregnant women, and, increasingly, young parents. Its success and persistence are critical to the health of these populations, and Medicaid program enhancements generally implementing the changes in organization and financing described in this chapter will improve health and health inequities. As also noted above, children’s hospitals (including organized children’s health programs in general hospitals) provide most of the subspecialty care for children and youth with more complex and less common health conditions. Insofar as many children have public health insurance—with even higher rates among children with chronic health conditions—children’s hospitals rely substantially on public financing. This reliance, however, puts these institutions at financial risk, as Medicaid generally pays much less than Medicare or private payers do for the same service. Although rates vary greatly among the states, on average, Medicaid pays at about two thirds of the Medicare rates (Biener and Selden, 2017). Substantial moves to capitated or population health payments will greatly enhance the needed changes in health care arrangements. Here, too, several State Medicaid programs have innovated in their programs for children and youth. New York has focused on value-based payments, including efforts to define value measures for children and develop incentives to PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-47 reward value improvements (NY Department of Health, 2017), based in large part on a careful analysis of value-based payment strategies for children (Bailit Health, 2016). Colorado has developed a Healthy Families Checklist, setting standards for Medicaid, strengthening eligibility opportunities for Medicaid, expanding benefits to include care coordination, and changing payment policy to support delivery system design (Ascend at the Aspen Institute, 2018). Massachusetts has reframed its Medicaid program as an ACO, emphasizing MBH integration, SDOH, and long-term supports and services (MA Executive Office of HHS, 2017). The committee supports health care payment reform efforts that promote value-based care, tie payment to population health outcomes rather than service delivery, and incentivize strategies that better address prevention and health equity. BOX 5-9: How Population Payments Can Enhance Use of New Technology A 6-year-old girl in first grade complains of an earache. New technology allows a trained layperson to take a picture of the girl’s ear membrane and send it to the child’s health care provider. Paying physicians for the number of visits they carry out provides an incentive to have the child (with a parent) come for an office visit to determine whether she has an ear infection. Physicians who no longer receive compensation for each visit but are instead reimbursed based on the needs of the patient population can examine the eardrum remotely and decide whether the child has an infection— potentially saving a trip to the office for both child and parent. Organization and Integration of Health Care Services Based on its review of the evidence, the committee concludes: Conclusion 5-4: Recent efforts to transform health care to address social determinants, early adversity, and mental and behavioral health integration and to develop community- based health care teams have increasingly addressed the changing needs of young families and children. Programs that build on home visiting, referrals to community partners, and integrated community efforts have enhanced outcomes for children and families. New technologies have expanded care and access, improved understanding of the social determinants, and improved communication about health and chronic disease. New payment arrangements can accelerate the transformation of health services to programs to support families and population health. To advance the integration an organization of health care services, the committee recommends: Recommendation 5-3: The Department of Health and Human Services, state, tribal, and territorial government Medicaid agencies, health systems leaders, and state and federal policy makers should adopt policies and practices that improve the organization and integration of care systems, including promoting multidisciplinary team-based care models that focus on integrating preconception, prenatal, and postpartum care with a whole-family focus, development of new practice and payment models that incentivize health creation and improve service delivery, and structures that more tangibly connect health care delivery systems to other partners outside of the health care sector. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-48 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Achieving this recommendation requires the following: • Spread multidisciplinary team-based care models in community settings. Promote the adoption and spread of multigenerational, team-based care models that support patients with a mix of traditional clinical professionals, such as doctors, nurses, social workers, and pharmacists, with mental health professionals, as well as community health workers or peer support specialists. Team activities include chronic disease management, integrated MBH, family support in early childhood, including access to parent training, and referral/connection to needed community services (housing, food, etc.). • Develop more integrated models for preconception, prenatal, and postpartum care delivery modes. Models and interventions should allow women to engage in a continuum of services on their preferred terms, including culturally and linguistically appropriate service models, multigenerational care, approaches that employ home or community-based service delivery for women who prefer those settings, or programs that use new technologies and work to intentionally incorporate a woman’s existing social support networks into her prenatal and postnatal care plan. • Adopt and spread integrated, whole-family and family-centered care models. The best models give providers the ability to address the health of individuals and families comprehensively, including clinical health, integrated with MBH and health-related social determinants. Expanded child and family health models include assessment of family strengths and needs and strategies to address them, moving beyond individual care. • Develop and use new technologies that improve care and improve accessibility. Advances include remote monitoring, as well as technologies to enhance ongoing communication, such as texting, virtual visits, and data sharing. • Align payment reform with health creation rather than service delivery. Payment should promote value-based care and tie payment to population health outcomes rather than service delivery. Payment should incentivize strategies that address health creation and health equity and include comprehensive, coordinated, community-engaged care. • Develop cross-sector collaboration at systems levels to address the intersection of drivers across the health continuum. Programs should seek collective impact or similar cross-sector efforts, such as ACH and other place-based initiatives, that aim to align health care, public health, social services, housing, education, and other sectors around aligned goals and common strategies. Shared governance structures should promote collaboration, including investment in administrative infrastructure and backbone organizations to manage collaboratives, assuring the flow of information and funding across sectors, as well as other strategies for sharing efforts and savings. THE FUTURE OF PRECONCEPTION THROUGH PEDIATRIC CARE Vision: To advance health equity, reduce health disparities, and improve birth and child health outcomes, the committee calls for a health care system that assures access for all to high-quality health care across the life course. Transformation of preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care will address early childhood sensitive and key life periods by including attention to the root causes of poor health (for example, access to safe housing, high-quality education, food security), early adversity, and equity. The system will respond to the needs of children and their families holistically and through team-based care and by connecting them with community PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-49 resources and integrating services across the life course. Assuring appropriate preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care will have long-lasting effects on the health and well- being of our nation’s children. Recommendation 5-4: Transform preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care to address the root causes of poor health and well-being—the social, economic, environmental, and cultural determinants of health and early adversity—and to align with the work of other sectors addressing health equity. The Department of Health and Human Services should convene an expert panel to reconceptualize the content and delivery of care, identify the specific changes needed, develop a blueprint for this transformation, and implement a plan to monitor and revise the blueprint over time. Implementation of this recommendation will require: • An update of clinical care guidelines and standards by the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative, Bright Futures, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and others actively developing clinical care guidelines and standards to include this new content of care; • Medical accreditation bodies, relevant programs, and agencies to develop performance monitoring and quality improvement based on this new content of care; • Clinical care educational authorities, such as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, to develop curricula, training, experiences, and competencies based on the updated guidelines; and • Public and private payers to cover services reflecting this new content of care. This work should take place within a larger framework of social and reproductive justice and include diverse voices, especially from communities most affected by adverse birth and child health outcomes. To expand the content of preconception to pediatric care to address key drivers of health inequities better, specific actions include: • Recognize the impact of both adverse and enriching experiences across the life course and cumulative effects on health and well-being: Address transitions between care providers and move from disjointed episodic care to an integrated continuum of longitudinal health care designed to optimize health production across the life course. • Include trauma assessment and response as an integral part of care: Expand practice capabilities to screen for and respond to trauma and early life adversities as part of the standard of care for all families. Advance the biomedical detection and treatment of toxic stress in clinical practice, including the development of methods for early detection and implementation of evidence-based interventions such as connections to community resources designed to help address the effects of trauma. (See Recommendation 8-2 in Chapter 8 for more on screening and rapid-assessment). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-50 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS • Change the content of clinical training to include social determinants of health, MBH integration, and early adversity: Expand training, care protocols, and workflows to address the SDOH as a routine part of clinical best practices, especially in early life. To accomplish this, curricula and related training experiences need to be expanded to include competency-based training on screening and mitigation of early adversity, providing TIC, addressing the SDOH, and reducing implicit bias and unequal treatment in health care. Progress toward objectives and training outcomes should be benchmarked. (See Recommendation 8-3 in Chapter 8 on TIC.) • Implement an equitable whole-child, whole-family, multigenerational approach: Expand clinical best practice to address the child and parents in an integrated, whole- family view of health that includes children, parents, and other caregivers. Train clinicians in ways that enhance the equitable delivery or care, including culturally competent caregiving and family-centered care that includes families and caregivers as partners in their own and their children’s care. Clinicians and clinical staff should have ongoing training and accountability in areas of implicit bias and equity in evaluation and treatment. CONCLUSION Applying the science of early development to transform the preconception, prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care has the potential to advance health equity. To better meet the needs of the populations receiving this care, the access, quality, and content of clinical care need to be addressed. This will require the health care system to be an active partner with other sectors and communities who are leading the way to address the root causes of health inequities—the social, economic, environmental, and cultural determinants of health. REFERENCES AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2010. Report of the Task Force on Mental Health. Pediatrics 125(Suppl 3). AAP. 2016. Bright Futures: Guidelines for supervision of infants, children, and adolescents, 4th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP. 2018. Blueprint for children. 2018 update: Achievements in child health advocacy. Washington, DC: American Academy of Pediatrics. AAP. n.d.-a. AAP agenda for children. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-facts/AAP-Agenda- for-Children-Strategic-Plan/Pages/AAP-Agenda-for-Children-Strategic-Plan.aspx (accessed June 4, 2019). AAP. n.d.-b. Screening tools. https://screeningtime.org/star-center/#/screening-tools#top (accessed April 16, 2019). AAP, and FRAC (Food Research & Action Center). 2017. Addressing food insecurity: A toolkit for pediatricians. Washington, DC: American Academy of Pediatrics and Food Research & Action Center. AAP Committee on Fetus and Newborn, and ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) Committee on Obstetric Practice. 2017. Guidelines for perinatal care, 8th ed. Edited by S. J. Kilpatrick, L.-A. Papile, and G. A. Macones. Elk Grove Village, IL, and Washington, DC: American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-51 AAP Committee on Hospital Care. 2003. Family-centered care and the pediatrician’s role. Pediatrics 112(3 Pt. 1):691–697. AAP Committee on Pediatric Workforce. 2013. Enhancing pediatric workforce diversity and providing culturally effective pediatric care: Implications for practice, education, and policy making. Pediatrics 132(4):e1105–e1116. AAP Council on Community Pediatrics. 2016. Poverty and child health in the United States. Pediatrics 137(4). ACOG. 2015. Committee opinion no. 649: Racial and ethnic disparities in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 126:e130–e134. ACOG. 2018a. Committee opinion no. 731: Group prenatal care. Obstetrics & Gynecology 131(3):e104– e108. ACOG. 2018b. Committee opinion no. 736: Optimizing postpartum care. Obstetrics & Gynecology 131(5):e140–e150. Ader, J., C. J. Stille, D. Keller, B. F. Miller, M. S. Barr, and J. M. Perrin. 2015. The medical home and integrated behavioral health: Advancing the policy agenda. Pediatrics 135(5):909–917. Adirim, T., Meade, K., Mistry, K., Council on Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Management. 2017. A new era in quality measurement: The development and application of quality measures. Pediatrics 139(1):e20163442. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality). 2018. All PQMP measures. https://www.ahrq.gov/pqmp/measures/all-pqmp-measures.html (accessed April 30, 2019). AHRQ. n.d.-1. Ambulatory care. https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality- resources/tools/ambulatory-care/index.html (accessed July 17, 2019). AHRQ. n.d.-2. The Academy: Integrating behavioral health and primary care. Literature collection. https://integrationacademy.ahrq.gov/products/literature-collection (accessed June 12, 2019). Alexander, G. R., and C. C. Korenbrot. 1995. The role of prenatal care in preventing low birth weight. The Future of Children 5(1):103–120. Alexander, G. R., and M. Kotelchuck. 2001. Assessing the role and effectiveness of prenatal care: History, challenges, and directions for future research. Public Health Reports 116(4):306–316. Alexander, G. R., and M. Slay. 2002. Prematurity at birth: Trends, racial disparities, and epidemiology. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 8(4):215–220. Alker, J., and O. Pham. 2018. Nation’s progress on children’s health coverage reverses course. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, Center for Children and Families. American College of Nurse-Midwives. 2012. Midwifery: Evidence-based practice. http://www.midwife.org/acnm/files/cclibraryfiles/filename/000000002128/midwifery%20evidence- based%20practice%20issue%20brief%20finalmay%202012.pdf (accessed July 19, 2019) Anderson, K., R. J. Norman, and P. Middleton. 2010. Preconception lifestyle advice for people with subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4):CD008189. Angier, H., J. Gregg, R. Gold, C. Crawford, M. Davis, and J. E. DeVoe. 2014. Understanding how low- income families prioritize elements of health care access for their children via the optimal care model. BMC Health Services Research 14:585. Angier, H., M. Hoopes, R. Gold, S. R. Bailey, E. K. Cottrell, J. Heintzman, M. Marino, and J. E. DeVoe. 2015. An early look at rates of uninsured safety net clinic visits after the Affordable Care Act. Annals of Family Medicine 13(1):10–16. Angier, H., M. Hoopes, M. Marino, N. Huguet, E. A. Jacobs, J. Heintzman, H. Holderness, C. M. Hood, and J. E. DeVoe. 2017. Uninsured primary care visit disparities under the Affordable Care Act. Annals of Family Medicine 15(5):434–442. Angier, H., D. Ezekiel-Herrera, M. Marino, M. Hoopes, E. A. Jacobs, J. E. DeVoe, and N. Huguet. 2019a. Racial/ethnic disparities in health insurance and differences in visit type for a population of patients with diabetes after Medicaid expansion. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 30(1):116–130. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-52 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Angier, H., E. A. Jacobs, N. Huguet, S. Likumahuwa-Ackman, S. Robert, and J. E. DeVoe. 2019b. Progress towards using community context with clinical data in primary care. Family Medicine and Community Health 7(1):e000028. Angus, L., and J. Devoe. 2010. Evidence that the citizenship mandate curtailed participation in Oregon’s Medicaid family planning program. Health Affairs 29(4):690–698. APA (American Psychological Association), and AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2017. US child poverty curriculum. https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health- initiatives/CPTI/Pages/U-S-Child-Poverty-Curriculum.aspx (accessed May 20, 2019). APA Task Force on Childhood Poverty. 2013. A strategic road-map: Committed to bringing the voice of pediatricians to the most important problem facing children in the US today. http://www.academicpeds.org/taskforces/pdfs/StrategicRoadMap_ver3.pdf (accessed May 20, 2019). Arthur, K. C., B. A. Lucenko, I. V. Sharkova, J. Xing, and R. Mangione-Smith. 2018. Using state administrative data to identify social complexity risk factors for children. Annals of Family Medicine 16(1):62–69. Artiga, S., K. Orgera, and A. Damico. 2019. Changes in health care coverage by race and ethnicity since implementation of the ACA, 2013–2017. Issue brief. San Francisco, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Ascend at the Aspen Institute. 2018. Healthy families checklist. https://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/resources/medicaid-checklist (accessed May 11, 2019). Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs. 2016. Opportunities to optimize access to prenatal care through health transformation. Washington, DC: Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs. ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials). 2013. Preconception care fact sheet. Arlington, VA: Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Avellar, S. A., and L. H. Supplee. 2013. Effectiveness of home visiting in improving child health and reducing child maltreatment. Pediatrics 132 S90–S99. Badura, M., K. Johnson, K. Hench, and M. Reyes. 2008. Healthy Start: Lessons learned on interconception care. Women’s Health Issues 18(6 Suppl):S61–S66. Bailey, S. R., M. Marino, M. Hoopes, J. Heintzman, R. Gold, H. Angier, J. P. O'Malley, and J. E. DeVoe. 2016. Healthcare utilization after a Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion in Oregon. Maternal and Child Health Journal 20(5):946–954. Bailit Health. 2016. Value-based payment models for Medicaid child health services. Needham, MA: Bailit Health. Bair-Merritt, M. H., M. Mandal, A. Garg, and T. L. Cheng. 2015. Addressing psychosocial adversity within the patient-centered medical home: Expert-created measurable standards. The Journal of Primary Prevention 36(4):213–225. Baker, J. P. 1994. Women and the invention of well child care. Pediatrics 94(4 Pt. 1):527–531. Balasubramanian, B. A., D. J. Cohen, K. K. Jetelina, L. M. Dickinson, M. Davis, R. Gunn, K. Gowen, F. V. deGruy, 3rd, B. F. Miller, and L. A. Green. 2017. Outcomes of integrated behavioral health with primary care. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 30(2):130−139. Barker, D. J. P. 1995. The fetal and infant origins of disease. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 25(7):457–463. Barker, D. J. P. 2003. The developmental origins of adult disease. European Journal of Epidemiology 18(8):733–736. Barker, D. J. P. 2004. The developmental origins of adult disease. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23(Supp 6):588S–595S. Bauer, J., L. Angus, N. Fischler, K. D. Rosenberg, T. F. Gipson, and J. Devoe. 2011. The impact of citizenship documentation requirements on access to Medicaid for pregnant women in Oregon. Maternal and Child Health Journal 15(6):753–758. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-53 Bazemore, A. W., E. K. Cottrell, R. Gold, L. S. Hughes, R. L. Phillips, H. Angier, T. E. Burdick, M. A. Carrozza, and J. E. DeVoe. 2016. "Community vital signs": Incorporating geocoded social determinants into electronic records to promote patient and population health. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23(2):407–412. Beal, A. C., J. P. Co, D. Dougherty, T. Jorsling, J. Kam, J. Perrin, and R. H. Palmer. 2004. Quality measures for children’s health care. Pediatrics 113(1 Pt, 2):199–209. Berchick, E. R., E. Hood, and J. C. Barnett. 2018. Current Population Reports, P60-264. Health insurance coverage in the United States: 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Berwick, D. M., B. James, and M. J. Coye. 2003. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Medical Care 41(1 Suppl):I30–138. Berwick, D. M., T. W. Nolan, and J. Whittington. 2008. The triple aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Affairs 27(3):759–769. Best Babies Zone. n.d. About us. http://www.bestbabieszone.org/About-Us-2016 (accessed June 20, 2019). Betancourt, J. R., A. R. Green, J. E. Carrillo, and O. Ananeh-Firempong, 2nd. 2003. Defining cultural competence: A practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care. Public Health Reports 118(4):293–302. Biener, A. I., and T. M. Selden. 2017. Public and private payments for physician office visits. Health Affairs 36(12):2160–2164. Bisgaier, J., and K. V. Rhodes. 2011. Auditing access to specialty care for children with public insurance. New England Journal of Medicine 364(24):2324–2333. Bloomfield, J., and S. S. Rising. 2013. CenteringParenting: An innovative dyad model for group mother- infant care. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health 58(6):683−689. Bohren, M. A., G. J. Hofmeyr, C. Sakala, R. K. Fukuzawa, and A. Cuthbert. 2017. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (7). Brett, K. M., K. C. Schoendorf, and J. L. Kiely. 1994. Differences between black and white women in the use of prenatal care technologies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 170(1):41–46. Brooks, T., and K. Wagnerman. 2018. Snapshot of children’s coverage by race and ethnicity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. Brown, C. C., J. E. Moore, H. C. Felix, M. K. Stewart, T. M. Bird, C. L. Lowery, and J. M. Tilford. 2019. Association of state Medicaid expansion status with low birth weight and preterm birth. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 321(16):1598−1609. Bryant, A. S., A. Worjoloh, A. B. Caughey, and A. E. Washington. 2010. Racial/ethnic disparities in obstetric outcomes and care: Prevalence and determinants. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202(4):335–343. Buchholz, M., C. Fischer, K. L. Margolis, and A. Talmi. 2016. Early childhood behavioral health integration in pediatric primary care: Serving refugee families in the Healthy Steps Program. Zero to Three 36(6):4–10. Building U.S. Capacity to Review and Prevent Maternal Deaths. 2018. Report from nine maternal mortality review committees. https://reviewtoaction.org/Report_from_Nine_MMRCs (accessed June 13, 2019). Burgess, C. K., P. A. Henning, W. V. Norman, M. G. Manze, and H. E. Jones. 2018. A systematic review of the effect of reproductive intention screening in primary care settings on reproductive health outcomes. Family Practice 35(2):122–131. Burke, B. L., Jr., R. W. Hall, and the Section on Telehealth Care. 2015. Telemedicine: Pediatric applications. Pediatrics 136(1):e293–e308. Calkins, K., and S. U. Devaskar. 2011. Fetal origins of adult disease. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 41(6):158–176. Callegari, L. S., A. R. Aiken, C. Dehlendorf, P. Cason, and S. Borrero. 2017. Addressing potential pitfalls of reproductive life planning with patient-centered counseling. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 216(2):129–134. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-54 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Campbell, J. D., M. Brooks, P. Hosokawa, J. Robinson, L. Song, and J. Krieger. 2015. Community health worker home visits for Medicaid-enrolled children with asthma: Effects on asthma outcomes and costs. American Journal of Public Health 105(11):2366–2372. Carlson, M. J., J. DeVoe, and B. J. Wright. 2006. Short-term impacts of coverage loss in a Medicaid population: Early results from a prospective cohort study of the Oregon Health Plan. Annals of Family Medicine 4(5):391–398. Carter, E. B., L. A. Temming, J. Akin, S. Fowler, G. A. Macones, G. A. Colditz, and M. G. Tuuli. 2016. Group prenatal care compared with traditional prenatal care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology 128(3):551–561. Catling, C. J., N. Medley, M. Foureur, C. Ryan, N. Leap, A. Teate, and C. S. Homer. 2015. Group versus conventional antenatal care for women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2):CD007622. Caughey, A. B., A. G. Cahill, J. M. Guise, and D. J. Rouse. 2014. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 210(3):179–193. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2016. Biomonitoring summary. Mercury. https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/mercury_biomonitoringsummary.html (accessed March 26, 2019). CDC. 2019a. Data and statistics on children’s mental health. https://www.cdc.gov/childrensmentalhealth/data.html (accessed June 5, 2019). CDC. 2019b. Infant mortality. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/infantmortality.htm (accessed July 13, 2018). CDC. 2019c. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance- system.htm (accessed July 16, 2019). Center for Child and Family Health. n.d. Family Connects Durham. https://www.ccfhnc.org/programs/family-connects-durham/ (accessed May 9, 2019). Center for Youth Wellness. n.d. Center for Youth Wellness ACEQ & user guide. https://centerforyouthwellness.org/cyw-aceq/ (accessed April 16, 2019). Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. n.d. FIND: Filming Interactions to Nurture Development. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/innovation-application/innovation-in-action/find/ (accessed May 9, 2019). Centering Healthcare Institute. n.d.-1. CenteringParenting. https://www.centeringhealthcare.org/what-we- do/centering-parenting (accessed May 9, 2019). Centering Healthcare Institute. n.d.-2. CenteringPregnancy. https://www.centeringhealthcare.org/what- we-do/centering-pregnancy (accessed July 17, 2019). Char, D. S., N. H. Shah, and D. Magnus. 2018. Implementing machine learning in health care— addressing ethical challenges. New England Journal of Medicine 378(11):981–983. Chassin, M. R. 2002. Achieving and sustaining improved quality: Lessons from New York State and cardiac surgery. Health Affairs 21(4):40–51. Chen, L., A. H. Crockett, S. Covington-Kolb, E. Heberlein, L. Zhang, and X. Sun. 2017. Centering and Racial Disparities (CRADLE study): Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial of CenteringPregnancy and birth outcomes. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 17(1):118. Child Trends. 2015. Low and very low birthweight infants. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Child Trends. 2018. Kindergarten Readiness National Outcome Measure. https://www.childtrends.org/project/kindergarten-readiness-national-outcome-measure (accessed April 29, 2019). Child Trends. n.d. Health care coverage for children. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/health-care- coverage (accessed April 18, 2019). Choi, M., B. D. Sommers, and J. M. McWilliams. 2011. Children’s health insurance and access to care during and after the CHIP expansion period. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 22(2):576–589. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-55 CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). 2019. Integrated Care for Kids (InCK) model. https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/integrated-care-for-kids-model/ (accessed April 16, 2019). CMS Maternal & Infant Health Initiative. 2015. Resources on strategies to improve postpartum care among Medicaid and CHIP populations. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of- care/downloads/strategies-to-improve-postpartum-care.pdf (accessed July 19, 2019). Coker, T. R., S. Chacon, M. N. Elliott, Y. Bruno, T. Chavis, C. Biely, C. D. Bethell, S. Contreras, N. A. Mimila, J. Mercado, and P. J. Chung. 2016. A parent coach model for well-child care among low- income children: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 137(3):e20153013.Conners, G. P., S. J. Kressly, J. M. Perrin, J. E. Richerson, and U. M. Sankrithi. 2017. Nonemergency acute care: When it’s not the medical home. Pediatrics 139(5):e20170629. Cornachione, E., R. Rudowitz, and S. Artiga. 2016. Children’s health coverage: The role of Medicaid and CHIP and issues for the future. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Cottrell, E. K., R. Gold, S. Likumahuwa, H. Angier, N. Huguet, D. J. Cohen, K. D. Clark, L. M. Gottlieb, and J. E. DeVoe. 2018. Using health information technology to bring social determinants of health into primary care: A conceptual framework to guide research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 29(3):949–963. Coury, D., A. Wolfe, P. H. Lipkin, B. Baer, S. L. Hyman, S. E. Levy, M. M. Macias, and B. Sisk. 2017. Screening of young children for autism spectrum disorders: Results from a national survey of pediatricians. Paper presented at Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. CPIPO (Commission on Paternal Involvement in Pregnancy Outcomes). 2010. Commission outlook: Best and promising practices for improving research, policy and practice on paternal involvement in pregnancy outcomes. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Creanga, A. A., C. J. Berg, C. Syverson, K. Seed, F. C. Bruce, and W. M. Callaghan. 2015. Pregnancy- related mortality in the United States, 2006–2010. Obstetrics & Gynecology 125(1):5–12. CSSP (Center for the Study of Social Policy). 2018. Pediatrics Supporting Parents. Program analysis: Program and site selection process and results. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. Cunningham, S. D., J. B. Lewis, F. M. Shebl, L. M. Boyd, M. A. Robinson, S. A. Grilo, S. M. Lewis, A. L. Pruett, and J. R. Ickovics. 2019. An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Journal of Women’s Health 28(1):17–22. Dabney, K., L. McClarin, E. Romano, D. Fitzgerald, L. Bayne, P. Oceanic, A. L. Nettles, and L. Holmes, Jr. 2015. Cultural competence in pediatrics: Health care provider knowledge, awareness, and skills. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(1). D'Angelo, D. V., B. Le, M. E. O'Neil, L. Williams, I. B. Ahluwalia, L. L. Harrison, R. L. Floyd, and V. Grigorescu. 2015. Patterns of health insurance coverage around the time of pregnancy among women with live-born infants—Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, 29 States, 2009. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 64(4):1–19. Dassanayake, M., E. Langen, and M. B. Davis. 2019. Pregnancy complications as a window to future cardiovascular disease. Cardiology in Review, https://journals.lww.com/cardiologyinreview/Abstract/publishahead/Pregnancy_Complications_as_a_ Window_to_Future.99700.aspx (accessed June 13, 2019).. de Boo, H. A., and J. E. Harding. 2006. The developmental origins of adult disease (Barker) hypothesis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 46(1):4–14. Declercq, E. R., C. Sakala, M. P. Corry, S. Applebaum, and A. Herrlich. 2013. Listening to Mothers III: New mothers speak out. New York, NY: Childbirth Connection. Dehlendorf, C., R. Ruskin, K. Grumbach, E. Vittinghoff, K. Bibbins-Domingo, D. Schillinger, and J. Steinauer. 2010. Recommendations for intrauterine contraception: A randomized trial of the effects of patients' race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 203(4):319.e311–319.e318. Dennis, C.-L., K. Fung, S. Grigoriadis, G. E. Robinson, S. Romans, and L. Ross. 2007. Traditional postpartum practices and rituals: A qualitative systematic review. Women’s Health 3(4):487–502. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-56 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS DeVoe, J., A. Graham, H. Angier, A. Baez, and L. Krois. 2008a. Obtaining healthcare services for low- income children: A hierarchy of needs. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 19(4):1192–1211. DeVoe, J., L. Krois, T. Edlund, J. Smith, and N. Carlson. 2008b. Uninsurance among children whose parents are losing Medicaid coverage: Preliminary results from a statewide survey of Oregon families. Health Services Research 43(1 Pt. 2):401–418. DeVoe, J. E., A. Graham, L. Krois, J. Smith, and G. L. Fairbrother. 2008c. "Mind the Gap" in children’s health insurance coverage: Does the length of a child’s coverage gap matter? Ambulatory Pediatrics 8(2):129–134. DeVoe, J. E., L. Krois, T. Edlund, J. Smith, and N. E. Carlson. 2008d. Uninsurance among children whose parents are losing Medicaid coverage: Results from a statewide survey of Oregon families. Health Services Research 43(1 Pt. 2):401–418. DeVoe, J. E., J. W. Saultz, L. Krois, and C. J. Tillotson. 2009a. A medical home versus temporary housing: The importance of a stable usual source of care. Pediatrics 124(5):1363–1371. DeVoe, J. E., C. J. Tillotson, and L. S. Wallace. 2009b. Children’s receipt of health care services and family health insurance patterns. Annals of Family Medicine 7(5):406–413. DeVoe, J. E., M. Ray, L. Krois, and M. J. Carlson. 2010. Uncertain health insurance coverage and unmet children’s health care needs. Family Medicine 42(2):121–132. DeVoe, J. E., M. Ray, and A. Graham. 2011a. Public health insurance in Oregon: Underenrollment of eligible children and parental confusion about children’s enrollment status. American Journal of Public Health 101(5):891–898. DeVoe, J. E., C. J. Tillotson, L. S. Wallace, H. Angier, M. J. Carlson, and R. Gold. 2011b. Parent and child usual source of care and children’s receipt of health care services. Annals of Family Medicine 9(6):504–513. DeVoe, J. E., C. J. Tillotson, L. S. Wallace, S. Selph, A. Graham, and H. Angier. 2011c. Comparing types of health insurance for children: A public option versus a private option. Medical Care 49(9):818– 827. DeVoe, J. E., L. Wallace, S. Selph, N. Westfall, and S. Crocker. 2011d. Comparing type of health insurance among low-income children: A mixed-methods study from Oregon. Maternal and Child Health Journal 15(8):1238–1248. DeVoe, J. E., C. J. Tillotson, L. S. Wallace, S. E. Lesko, and H. Angier. 2012a. The effects of health insurance and a usual source of care on a child’s receipt of health care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care 26(5):e25–e35. DeVoe, J. E., C. J. Tillotson, L. S. Wallace, S. E. Lesko, and N. Pandhi. 2012b. Is health insurance enough? A usual source of care may be more important to ensure a child receives preventive health counseling. Maternal and Child Health Journal 16(2):306–315. DeVoe, J. E., C. Crawford, H. Angier, J. O'Malley, C. Gallia, M. Marino, and R. Gold. 2015a. The association between Medicaid coverage for children and parents persists: 2002–2010. Maternal and Child Health Journal 19(8):1766–1774. DeVoe, J. E., M. Marino, H. Angier, and et al. 2015b. Effect of expanding Medicaid for parents on children’s health insurance coverage: Lessons from the Oregon experiment. JAMA Pediatrics 169(1):e143145. DeVoe, J. E., M. Marino, R. Gold, M. J. Hoopes, S. Cowburn, J. P. O'Malley, J. Heintzman, C. Gallia, K. J. McConnell, C. A. Nelson, N. Huguet, and S. R. Bailey. 2015c. Community health center use after Oregon’s randomized Medicaid experiment. Annals of Family Medicine 13(4):312–320. DeVoe, J. E., C. J. Tillotson, H. Angier, and L. S. Wallace. 2015d. Predictors of children’s health insurance coverage discontinuity in 1998 versus 2009: Parental coverage continuity plays a major role. Maternal and Child Health Journal 19(4):889–896. DeVoe, J. E., A. W. Bazemore, E. K. Cottrell, S. Likumahuwa-Ackman, J. Grandmont, N. Spach, and R. Gold. 2016. Perspectives in primary care: A conceptual framework and path for integrating social determinants of health into primary care practice. Annals of Family Medicine 14(2):104–108. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-57 DiBari, J. N., S. M. Yu, S. M. Chao, and M. C. Lu. 2014. Use of postpartum care: Predictors and barriers. Journal of Pregnancy 2014:530769. Dodge, K. A., W. B. Goodman, R. A. Murphy, K. O'Donnell, and J. Sato. 2013. Randomized controlled trial of universal postnatal nurse home visiting: Impact on emergency care. Pediatrics 132(Suppl 2):S140–S146. Dodge, K. A., W. B. Goodman, R. A. Murphy, K. O'Donnell, J. Sato, and S. Guptill. 2014. Implementation and randomized controlled trial evaluation of universal postnatal nurse home visiting. American Journal of Public Health 104(Suppl 1):S136–S143. DONA International. n.d. What is a doula? https://www.dona.org/what-is-a-doula/ (accessed April 29, 2019). Dubay, L., and G. Kenney. 2003. Expanding public health insurance to parents: Effects on children’s coverage under Medicaid. Health Services Research 38(5):1283–1301. Dubowitz, H., W. G. Lane, J. N. Semiatin, L. S. Magder, M. Venepally, and M. Jans. 2011. The Safe Environment for Every Kid model: Impact on pediatric primary care professionals. Pediatrics 127(4):e962–e970. Dubowitz, H., W. G. Lane, J. N. Semiatin, and L. S. Magder. 2012. The SEEK model of pediatric primary care: Can child maltreatment be prevented in a low-risk population? Academic Pediatrics 12(4):259– 268. Dudley, R. A., R. H. Miller, T. Y. Korenbrot, and H. S. Luft. 1998. The impact of financial incentives on quality of health care. The Milbank Quarterly 76(4):649–686, 511. Dunst, C. J., and C. M. Trivette. 2009. Meta-analytic structural equation modeling of the influences of family-centered care on parent and child psychological health. International Journal of Pediatrics 2009:576840. Dunst, C. J., C. M. Trivette, and D. W. Hamby. 2007. Meta-analysis of family-centered helpgiving practices research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 13(4):370– 378.Dzau, V. J., M. B. McClellan, J. M. McGinnis, S. P. Burke, M. J. Coye, A. Diaz, T. A. Daschle, W. H. Frist, M. Gaines, M. A. Hamburg, J. E. Henney, S. Kumanyika, M. O. Leavitt, R. M. Parker, L. G. Sandy, L. D. Schaeffer, G. D. Steele, Jr., P. Thompson, and E. Zerhouni. 2017. Vital directions for health and health care: Priorities from a National Academy of Medicine initiative. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 317(14):1461–1470. Eberhard-Gran, M., S. Garthus-Niegel, K. Garthus-Niegel, and A. Eskild. 2010. Postnatal care: A cross- cultural and historical perspective. Archives of Women’s Mental Health 13(6):459–466. Eisner, V., J. V. Brazie, M. W. Pratt, and A. C. Hexter. 1979. The risk of low birthweight. American Journal of Public Health 69(9):887–893. Ellis, R. P. 2001. Formal risk adjustment by private employers. Inquiry 38(3):299–309. Epstein, A. M., T. H. Lee, and M. B. Hamel. 2004. Paying physicians for high-quality care. New England Journal of Medicine 350(4):406–410. Evans, W. D., J. L. Wallace, and J. Snider. 2012. Pilot evaluation of the Text4Baby mobile health program. BMC Public Health 12:1031. Feigelman, S., H. Dubowitz, W. Lane, L. Grube, and J. Kim. 2011. Training pediatric residents in a primary care clinic to help address psychosocial problems and prevent child maltreatment. Academic Pediatrics 11(6):474–480. Fierman, A. H., A. F. Beck, E. K. Chung, M. M. Tschudy, T. R. Coker, K. B. Mistry, B. Siegel, L. J. Chamberlain, K. Conroy, S. G. Federico, P. J. Flanagan, A. Garg, B. A. Gitterman, A. M. Grace, R. S. Gross, M. K. Hole, P. Klass, C. Kraft, A. Kuo, G. Lewis, K. S. Lobach, D. Long, C. T. Ma, M. Messito, D. Navsaria, K. R. Northrip, C. Osman, M. D. Sadof, A. B. Schickedanz, and J. Cox. 2016. Redesigning health care practices to address childhood poverty. Academic Pediatrics 16(3 Suppl):S136–S146. Finer, L. B., and M. R. Zolna. 2016. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. New England Journal of Medicine 374(9):843–852. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-58 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Finkelstein, A., S. Taubman, B. Wright, M. Bernstein, J. Gruber, J. P. Newhouse, H. Allen, and K. Baicker. 2012. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the first year. Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3):1057–1106. Fiscella, K. 1995. Does prenatal care improve birth outcomes? A critical review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 85(3):468–479. Flowers, L., and J. Accius. 2019. The new Medicaid waivers: Coverage losses for beneficiaries, higher costs for states. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute. Foy, J. M., and AAP Task Force on Mental Health. 2010. Enhancing pediatric mental health care: report from the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Mental Health. Introduction. Pediatrics 125(Suppl 3):S69–S74. Frey, K. A., S. M. Navarro, M. Kotelchuck, and M. C. Lu. 2008. The clinical content of preconception care: Preconception care for men. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199(6):S389– S395. Gareau, S., A. Lopez-De Fede, B. L. Loudermilk, T. H. Cummings, J. W. Hardin, A. H. Picklesimer, E. Crouch, and S. Covington-Kolb. 2016. Group prenatal care results in Medicaid savings with better outcomes: A propensity score analysis of CenteringPregnancy participation in South Carolina. Maternal and Child Health Journal 20(7):1384–1393.Garg, A., A. M. Butz, P. H. Dworkin, R. A. Lewis, R. E. Thompson, and J. R. Serwint. 2007. Improving the management of family psychosocial problems at low-income children’s well-child care visits: The WE CARE Project. Pediatrics 120(3):547–558. Garg, A., M. Marino, A. R. Vikani, and B. S. Solomon. 2012. Addressing families' unmet social needs within pediatric primary care: The Health Leads model. Clinical Pediatrics 51(12):1191–1193. Garg, A., S. Toy, Y. Tripodis, M. Silverstein, and E. Freeman. 2015. Addressing social determinants of health at well child care visits: A cluster RCT. Pediatrics 135(2):e296–e304. Garg, A., R. Boynton-Jarrett, and P. H. Dworkin. 2016. Avoiding the unintended consequences of screening for social determinants of health. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 316(8):813–814. Garner, A. S., J. P. Shonkoff, B. S. Siegel, M. I. Dobbins, M. F. Earls, L. McGuinn, J. Pascoe, and D. L. Wood. 2012. Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician: Translating developmental science into lifelong health. Pediatrics 129(1):e224–e231. Garrett, B., and A. Gangopadhyaya. 2015. Who gained health insurance coverage under the ACA, and where do they live? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. 2017. Medicaid’s role for children. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Medicaid-and-Children-update-Jan-2017- rev.pdf (accessed July 17, 2019). Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. 2018. Snapshot of children’s coverage by race and ethnicity. https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Kids-coverage-by-race- ethnicity-update-v2.pdf (accessed April 16, 2019). Ghandour, R. M., K. Flaherty, A. Hirai, V. Lee, D. K. Walker, and M. C. Lu. 2017. Applying collaborative learning and quality improvement to public health: Lessons from the Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (CoIIN) to reduce infant mortality. Maternal and Child Health Journal 21(6):1318–1326. Ghandour, R. M., K. Anderson Moore, K. Murphy, C. Bethell, J. Jones, R. Harwood, J. Buerlein, M. Kogan, and M. Lu. 2018. School readiness among U.S. children: Development of a pilot measure. Child Indicators Research:1–23. Gianfrancesco, M. A., S. Tamang, J. Yazdany, and G. Schmajuk. 2018. Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Internal Medicine 178(11):1544–1547. Gleason, M. M., E. Goldson, and M. W. Yogman. 2016. Addressing early childhood emotional and behavioral problems. Pediatrics 138(6):e20163025. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-59 Gold, R., S. R. Bailey, J. P. O'Malley, M. J. Hoopes, S. Cowburn, M. Marino, J. Heintzman, C. Nelson, S. P. Fortmann, and J. E. DeVoe. 2014. Estimating demand for care after a Medicaid expansion: Lessons from Oregon. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 37(4):282–292. Goodson, B. D. 2014. Parent support programs and outcomes for children. http://www.child- encyclopedia.com/parenting-skills/according-experts/parent-support-programs-and-outcomes- children (accessed January 30, 2019). Goossens, J. 2018. Barriers and facilitators to the provision of preconception care by healthcare providers: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 87C:113–130. Gortmaker, S. L. 1979. The effects of prenatal care upon the health of the newborn. American Journal of Public Health 69(7):653–660. Gottlieb, L. M., D. Hessler, D. Long, E. Laves, A. R. Burns, A. Amaya, P. Sweeney, C. Schudel, and N. E. Adler. 2016. Effects of social needs screening and in-person service navigation on child health: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics 170(11):e162521. Greenberg, R. S. 1983. The impact of prenatal care in different social groups. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 145(7):797–801. Gunja, M. Z., S. R. Collins, M. M. Doty, and S. Beutel. 2017. How the Affordable Care Act has helped women gain insurance and improved their ability to get health care. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/aug/how-affordable-care-act-has- helped-women-gain-insurance-and (accessed January 10, 2019). Guyer, B., M. Barth, D. Bishai, M. Caughy, D. Burkom, and C. Tang. 2003. Healthy Steps: The first three years: The Healthy Steps for Young Children Program National Evaluation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Haggerty, R. J., K. J. Roghmann, and I. B. Pless. 1975. Child health and the community. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Halfon, N. 2012. Addressing health inequalities in the US: A life course health development approach. Social Science & Medicine 74(5):671–673. Halfon, N., and M. Hochstein. 2002. Life course health development: An integrated framework for developing health policy & research. The Milbank Quarterly 80(3):433–479. Halfon, N., A. Houtrow, K. Larson, and P. W. Newacheck. 2012. The changing landscape of disability in childhood. The Future of Children 22(1):13–42. Halfon, N., P. Long, D. I. Chang, J. Hester, M. Inkelas, and A. Rodgers. 2014. Applying a 3.0 transformation framework to guide large-scale health system reform. Health Affairs 33(11):2003– 2011. Hall, J. A., L. Benton, A. Copas, and J. Stephenson. 2017. Pregnancy intention and pregnancy outcome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal and Child Health Journal 21(3):670–704. Handler, Arden, Joan Kennelly, and Nadine Ruth Peacock. 2011. Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in reproductive and perinatal outcomes: the evidence from population-based interventions. New York: Springer. Hans, S. L., R. C. Edwards, and Y. Zhang. 2018. Randomized controlled trial of doula-home-visiting services: Impact on maternal and infant health. Maternal and Child Health Journal 22(Suppl 1):105– 113. Harlem Children’s Zone. n.d. Harlem Children’s Zone. https://hcz.org/ (accessed June 12, 2019). Hatch, B. A., J. E. DeVoe, J. A. Lapidus, M. J. Carlson, and B. J. Wright. 2014. Citizenship documentation requirement for Medicaid eligibility: Effects on Oregon children. Family Medicine 46(4):267–275. Hatch, B., S. R. Bailey, S. Cowburn, M. Marino, H. Angier, and J. E. DeVoe. 2016. Community health center utilization following the 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon: Implications for the Affordable Care Act. American Journal of Public Health 106(4):645–650. Hayes, S. L., P. Riley, D. C. Radley, and D. McCarthy. 2017. Reducing racial and ethnic disparities in access to care: Has the Affordable Care Act made a difference? Issue brief. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-60 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS HealthConnect One. 2014. The perinatal revolution. Chicago, IL: HealthConnect One. Heaman, M. I., M. Moffatt, L. Elliott, W. Sword, M. E. Helewa, H. Morris, P. Gregory, L. Tjaden, and C. Cook. 2014. Barriers, motivators and facilitators related to prenatal care utilization among inner-city women in Winnipeg, Canada: A case-control study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 14:227. Heintzman, J., S. R. Bailey, J. DeVoe, S. Cowburn, T. Kapka, T. V. Duong, and M. Marino. 2017. In low-income Latino patients, post-Affordable Care Act insurance disparities may be reduced even more than broader national estimates: Evidence from Oregon. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 4(3):329–336. Help Me Grow. 2017. Building impact: 2017 annual report. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. Hemsing, N., L. Greaves, and N. Poole. 2017. Preconception health care interventions: A scoping review. Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare 14:24–32. Henize, A. W., A. F. Beck, M. D. Klein, M. Adams, and R. S. Kahn. 2015. A road map to address the social determinants of health through community collaboration. Pediatrics 136(4):e993–e1001. Henry Kaiser Family Foundation. 2017. Medicaid’s role for women. Fact sheet. Kaiser Family Foundation, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/medicaids-role-for-women/ (accessed January 10, 2019). Henry Kaiser Family Foundation. 2019. Status of state action on the Medicaid expansion decision. https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under- the-affordable-care- act/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc% 22%7D (accessed March 26, 2019). HHS (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services). 2015. Child health USA 2014. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Hibbard, J. H., J. Stockard, and M. Tusler. 2005. Hospital performance reports: Impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Affairs 24(4):1150–1160. Hirai, A. H., M. D. Kogan, V. Kandasamy, C. Reuland, and C. Bethell. 2018a. Prevalence and variation of developmental screening and surveillance in early childhood. JAMA Pediatrics 172(9):857–866. Hirai, A. H., W. M. Sappenfield, R. M. Ghandour, S. Donahue, V. Lee, and M. C. Lu. 2018b. The Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (CoIIN) to Reduce Infant Mortality: An outcome evaluation from the US South, 2011 to 2014. American Journal of Public Health 108(6):815–821. Hofstetter, A. M., N. DuRivage, C. Y. Vargas, S. Camargo, D. K. Vawdrey, A. Fisher, and M. S. Stockwell. 2015. Text message reminders for timely routine MMR vaccination: A randomized controlled trial. Vaccine 33(43):5741–5746. Homer, C. J., K. Klatka, D. Romm, K. Kuhlthau, S. Bloom, P. Newacheck, J. Van Cleave, and J. M. Perrin. 2008. A review of the evidence for the medical home for children with special health care needs. Pediatrics 122(4):e922–e937. Hoopes, M. J., H. Angier, R. Gold, S. R. Bailey, N. Huguet, M. Marino, and J. E. DeVoe. 2016. Utilization of community health centers in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states, 2013–2014. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 39(4):290–298. Houtrow, A. J., K. Larson, L. M. Olson, P. W. Newacheck, and N. Halfon. 2014. Changing trends of childhood disability, 2001–2011. Pediatrics 134(3):530–538. Howell, E. M., and G. M. Kenney. 2012. The impact of the Medicaid/CHIP expansions on children: A synthesis of the evidence. Medical Care Research and Review 69(4):372–396. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Organization). 2018. Women’s preventive services guidelines. https://www.hrsa.gov/womens-guidelines/index.html (accessed July 19, 2019). HRSA (Health Resources and Services Organization). 2019. Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Program. https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-health-initiatives/title-v-maternal-and- child-health-services-block-grant-program (accessed April 29, 2019). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-61 HRSA. n.d. Understanding Title V of the Social Security Act. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Huguet, N., M. J. Hoopes, H. Angier, M. Marino, H. Holderness, and J. E. DeVoe. 2017. Medicaid expansion produces long-term impact on insurance coverage rates in community health centers. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 8(4):206–212. Huguet, N., R. Springer, M. Marino, H. Angier, M. Hoopes, H. Holderness, and J. E. DeVoe. 2018. The impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on visit rates for diabetes in safety net health centers. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 31(6):905–916. Huntington, J., and F. A. Connell. 1994. For every dollar spent—the cost-savings argument for prenatal care. New England Journal of Medicine 331(19):1303–1307. Hussein, N., J. Kai, and N. Qureshi. 2016. The effects of preconception interventions on improving reproductive health and pregnancy outcomes in primary care: A systematic review. European Journal of General Practice 22(1):42–52. Hussein, N., S. F. Weng, J. Kai, J. Kleijnen, and N. Qureshi. 2018. Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3. Ickovics, J. R., T. S. Kershaw, C. Westdahl, U. Magriples, Z. Massey, H. Reynolds, and S. S. Rising. 2007. Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110(2 Pt. 1):330–339. Ickovics, J. R., V. Earnshaw, J. B. Lewis, T. S. Kershaw, U. Magriples, E. Stasko, S. S. Rising, A. Cassells, S. Cunningham, P. Bernstein, and J. N. Tobin. 2016. Cluster randomized controlled trial of group prenatal care: Perinatal outcomes among adolescents in New York City health centers. American Journal of Public Health 106(2):359–365. Institute for Medicaid Innovation. n.d. Best practices in Medicaid managed care. https://www.medicaidinnovation.org/current-initiatives/best-practices (accessed June 20, 2019). IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1973. Infant death: An analysis by maternal risk and health care. Vol. 1 of Contrasts in Health Status. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. IOM. 1985. Preventing low birthweight. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. IOM. 1998. America’s children: Health insurance and access to care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. IOM. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. IOM. 2002. Health insurance is a family matter. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2003. Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in the food supply: Strategies to decrease exposure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2006. Performance measurement: Accelerating improvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Jack, B. W., H. Atrash, D. V. Coonrod, M. K. Moos, J. O'Donnell, and K. Johnson. 2008. The clinical content of preconception care: An overview and preparation of this supplement. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199(6):S266–S279. James, J. 2015. Health policy brief: The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment. Health Affairs, July 16. Johnson, A. A., B. J. Hatcher, M. N. El-Khorazaty, R. A. Milligan, B. Bhaskar, M. F. Rodan, L. Richards, B. K. Wingrove, and H. A. Laryea. 2007. Determinants of inadequate prenatal care utilization by African American women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 18(3):620–636. Johnson, K., S. F. Posner, J. Biermann, J. F. Cordero, H. K. Atrash, C. S. Parker, S. Boulet, and M. G. Curtis. 2006. Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care—United States. A report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Recommendations and Reports 55(RR06):1–23. Johnston, E. M., A.E. Strahan, P. Joski, A. L. Dunlop, E. K. Adams. 2018. Impacts of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion on women of reproductive age: Differences by parental status and state policies. Women’s Health Issues 28(2): 122–129. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-62 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Jones, D. E., M. Greenberg, and M. Crowley. 2015. Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health 105(11):2283–2290. Juillard, C., L. Cooperman, I. Allen, R. Pirracchio, T. Henderson, R. Marquez, J. Orellana, M. Texada, and R. A. Dicker. 2016. A decade of hospital-based violence intervention: Benefits and shortcomings. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 81(6):1156–1161. Kalmuss, D., and K. Fennelly. 1990. Barriers to prenatal care among low-income women in New York City. Family Planning Perspectives 22(5):215–218, 231. Katkin, J. P., S. J. Kressly, A. R. Edwards, J. M. Perrin, C. A. Kraft, J. E. Richerson, J. S. Tieder, and L. Wall. 2017. Guiding principles for team-based pediatric care. Pediatrics 140(2). Keith, K. 2018. Administration moves to liberalize rules on short-term, non-ACA-compliant coverage. Health Affairs Blog, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180220.69087/full/ (accessed January 10, 2019). Kelleher, K., J. Reece, and M. Sandel. 2018. The Healthy Neighborhood, Healthy Families initiative. Pediatrics 142(3). Kerker, B. D., A. Storfer-Isser, M. Szilagyi, R. E. Stein, A. S. Garner, K. G. O'Connor, K. E. Hoagwood, and S. M. Horwitz. 2016. Do pediatricians ask about adverse childhood experiences in pediatric primary care? Academic Pediatrics 16(2):154–160. Kimm, S. Y. S. 2004. Fetal origins of adult disease: The Barker hypothesis revisited—2004. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity 11(4):192–196. Klein, M. D., A. F. Beck, A. W. Henize, D. S. Parrish, E. E. Fink, and R. S. Kahn. 2013. Doctors and lawyers collaborating to HeLP children—outcomes from a successful partnership between professions. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 24(3):1063–1073. Klerman, J. A., K. Daley, and A. Pozniak. 2014. Family and medical leave in 2012: Technical report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Kluchin, R. 2009. Fit to be tied: Sterilization and reproductive rights in America, 1950-1980. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press. Kogan, M. D., M. Kotelchuck, G. R. Alexander, and W. E. Johnson. 1994. Racial disparities in reported prenatal care advice from health care providers. American Journal of Public Health 84(1):82–88. Kogan, M. D., J. A. Martin, G. R. Alexander, M. Kotelchuck, S. J. Ventura, and F. D. J. J. Frigoletto. 1998. The changing pattern of prenatal care utilization in the United States, 1981–1995, using different prenatal care indices. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 279(20):1623– 1628. Korenbrot, C. C., A. Gill, Z. Clayson, and E. Patterson. 1995. Evaluation of California’s statewide implementation of enhanced perinatal services as Medicaid benefits. Public Health Reports 110(2):125–133. Korenbrot, C. C., A. Steinberg, C. Bender, and S. Newberry. 2002. Preconception care: A systematic review. Maternal and Child Health Journal 6(2):75–88. Kotelchuck, M., and M. Lu. 2017. Father’s role in preconception health. Maternal and Child Health Journal 21(11):2025–2039. Kotelchuck, M., M. D. Kogan, G. R. Alexander, and B. W. Jack. 1997. The influence of site of care on the content of prenatal care for low-income women. Maternal and Child Health Journal 1(1):25–34. Kozhimannil, K. B., L. B. Attanasio, R. R. Hardeman, and M. O'Brien. 2013. Doula care supports near- universal breastfeeding initiation among diverse, low-income women. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health 58(4):378−382. Kozhimannil, K. B., C. A. Vogelsang, R. R. Hardeman, and S. Prasad. 2016. Disrupting the pathways of social determinants of health: Doula support during pregnancy and childbirth. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 29(3):308–317. Krieger, J. W., T. K. Takaro, L. Song, and M. Weaver. 2005. The Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project: A randomized, controlled trial of a community health worker intervention to decrease exposure to indoor asthma triggers. American Journal of Public Health 95(4):652–659. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-63 Kuhlthau, K., T. G. Ferris, R. B. Davis, J. M. Perrin, and L. I. Iezzoni. 2005. Pharmacy- and diagnosis- based risk adjustment for children with Medicaid. Medical Care 43(11):1155–1159. Kuo, D. Z., A. J. Houtrow, P. Arango, K. A. Kuhlthau, J. M. Simmons, and J. M. Neff. 2012. Family- centered care: Current applications and future directions in pediatric health care. Maternal and Child Health Journal 16(2):297−305. Kwan, B. M., and D. E. Nease Jr. 2013. The state of the evidence for integrated behavioral health in primary care. In Integrated behavioral health in primary care, edited by M. Talen and A. Burke Valeras. New York, NY: Springer. Pp. 65–98. Lahiri, T., S. E. Hempstead, C. Brady, C. L. Cannon, K. Clark, M. E. Condren, M. F. Guill, R. P. Guillerman, C. G. Leone, K. Maguiness, L. Monchil, S. W. Powers, M. Rosenfeld, S. J. Schwarzenberg, C. L. Tompkins, E. T. Zemanick, and S. D. Davis. 2016. Clinical practice guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for preschoolers with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics 137(4). Lassi, Z. S., A. M. Imam, S. V. Dean, and Z. A. Bhutta. 2014. Preconception care: Screening and management of chronic disease and promoting psychological health. Reproductive Health 11:S5. Lewis, C., M.K. Abrams, S. Seervai. 2017. Listening to low-income patients: obstacles to the care we need, when we need it. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2017/listening-low-income- patients-obstacles-care-we-need-when-we-need-it (accessed July 19, 2019) Lesser, A. J. 1965. Closing the gaps in the nation’s health services for mothers and children. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 41(12):1248–1254. Lindenauer, P. K., D. Remus, S. Roman, M. B. Rothberg, E. M. Benjamin, A. Ma, and D. W. Bratzler. 2007. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. New England Journal of Medicine 356(5):486–496. Lindenauer P.K., T. Lagu, J.S. Ross, P. S. Pekow, A. Shatz, N. Hannon, M. B. Rothberg, E.M. Benjamin. 2014. Attitudes of Hospital Leaders Toward Publicly Reported Measures of Health Care Quality. JAMA Internal Medicine 174(12):1904–1911. Lu, M. C. 2019. The future of maternal and child health. Maternal and Child Health Journal 23(1):1–7. Lu, M. C., and J. S. Lu. 2008. Prenatal care. In Encyclopedia of infant and early childhood development, Vol. 3, edited by M. M. Haith and J. B. Benson. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Pp. 591–604. Lu, M. C., V. Tache, G. R. Alexander, M. Kotelchuck, and N. Halfon. 2003. Preventing low birth weight: Is prenatal care the answer? The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 13(6):362–380. Lu, M. C., M. Kotelchuck, V. K. Hogan, K. Johnson, and C. Reyes. 2010. Innovative strategies to reduce disparities in the quality of prenatal care in underresourced settings. Medical Care Research and Review 67(Suppl):198S–230S. MA Executive Office of HHS (Department of Health & Human Services). 2017. MassHealth Delivery System Restructuring—Provider Overview. Boston, MA: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. MacLaughlin, S., L. Gillespie, and R. Parlakian. 2017. Using pediatric visits to support children and families: Ten positive outcomes from HealthySteps. Zero to Three:46–52. Macmillan, H. L., C. N. Wathen, J. Barlow, D. M. Fergusson, J. M. Leventhal, and H. N. Taussig. 2009. Interventions to prevent child maltreatment and associated impairment. The Lancet 373(9659):250– 266. MACPAC (Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission). 2016. Enrollment and spending on Medicaid managed care. https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/enrollment-and-spending-on-medicaid- managed-care/ (accessed April 16, 2019). MACPAC. 2018. MACStats: Medicaid and CHIP data book. Washington, DC: Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Makni, N., A. Rothenburger, and K. Kelleher. 2015. Survey of twelve children’s hospital-based accountable care organizations. Journal of Hospital Administration 4(2):64–73. Marcil, L. E., M. K. Hole, L. M. Wenren, M. S. Schuler, B. S. Zuckerman, and R. J. Vinci. 2018. Free tax services in pediatric clinics. Pediatrics 141(6). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-64 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Marino, M., S. R. Bailey, R. Gold, M. J. Hoopes, J. P. O'Malley, N. Huguet, J. Heintzman, C. Gallia, K. J. McConnell, and J. E. DeVoe. 2016. Receipt of preventive services after Oregon’s randomized Medicaid experiment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50(2):161–170. Marmot, M., M. Shipley, E. Brunner, and H. Hemingway. 2001. Relative contribution of early life and adult socioeconomic factors to adult morbidity in the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55(5):301–307. Marshall, M. N., P. G. Shekelle, S. Leatherman, and R. H. Brook. 2000. Public disclosure of performance data: Learning from the US experience. Quality in Health Care 9(1):53–57. Martin, J. A., B. E. Hamilton, S. J. Ventura, F. Menacker, M. M. Park, and P. D. Sutton. 2002. Births: Final data for 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports 51(2). Martin, J. A., B. E. Hamilton, M. J. K. Osterman, A. K. Driscoll, and P. Drake. 2018. Births: Final data for 2016. National Vital Statistics Reports 67(1).McAvoy, P. V., M. B. Driscoll, and B. J. Gramling. 2004. Integrating the environment, the economy, and community health: A community health center’s initiative to link health benefits to smart growth. American Journal of Public Health 94(4):525–527. Mazul, M. C., T. C. Salm Ward, and E. M. Ngui. 2017. Anatomy of good prenatal care: Perspectives of low income African-American women on barriers and facilitators to prenatal care. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities 4(1): 79-86. McCormick, M. C., R. M. Weinick, A. Elixhauser, M. N. Stagnitti, J. Thompson, and L. Simpson. 2001. Annual report on access to and utilization of health care for children and youth in the United States— 2000. Ambulatory Pediatrics 1(1):3–15. McGinnis, J. M., P. Williams-Russo, and J. R. Knickman. 2002. The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Affairs 21(2):78–93. Medicaid. n.d. Children’s health care quality measures. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of- care/performance-measurement/child-core-set/index.html (accessed April 30, 2019). Mendelsohn, A. L., L. N. Mogilner, B. P. Dreyer, J. A. Forman, S. C. Weinstein, M. Broderick, K. J. Cheng, T. Magloire, T. Moore, and C. Napier. 2001. The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on language development in inner-city preschool children. Pediatrics 107(1):130–134. Millenson, M. L. 2004. Pay for performance: The best worst choice. Quality and Safety in Health Care 13(5):323–324. Minkovitz, C. S., D. Strobino, K. B. Mistry, D. O. Scharfstein, H. Grason, W. Hou, N. Ialongo, and B. Guyer. 2007. Healthy Steps for Young Children: Sustained results at 5.5 years. Pediatrics 120(3):e658–e668. Mishra, S. I., D. Gioia, S. Childress, B. Barnet, and R. L. Webster. 2011. Adherence to medication regimens among low-income patients with multiple comorbid chronic conditions. Health & Social Work 36(4):249–258. Morone, J. 2017. An integrative review of social determinants of health assessment and screening tools used in pediatrics. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 37:22–28. Mosher, W. D., J. Jones, and J. C. Abma. 2012. Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982–2010. National Health Statistics Reports (55):1–28. Muoto, I., J. Luck, J. Yoon, S. Bernell, and J. M. Snowden. 2016. Oregon’s coordinated care organizations increased timely prenatal care initiation and decreased disparities. Health Affairs 35(9):1625–1632. Murphy, S. L., J. Xu, K. D. Kocharek, and E. Arias. 2018. Mortality in the United States, 2017. NCHS Data Brief No. 328. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Musumeci, M., R. Rudowitz, E. Hinton, L. Antonisse, and C. Hall. 2018. Section 1115 Medicaid demonstration waivers: The current landscape of approved and pending waivers. Issue brief. Kaiser Family Foundation, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/section-1115-medicaid-demonstration- waivers-the-current-landscape-of-approved-and-pending-waivers/ (accessed January 10, 2019). PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-65 National Institute for Children's Health Quality. n.d. Monitoring, data, & evaluation. https://www.healthystartepic.org/healthy-start-implementation/monitoring-data-and-evaluation/ (accessed July 19, 2019). NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2015. Mental disorders and disabilities among low-income children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. 2016. Parenting matters: Supporting parents of children ages 0–8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. 2017. Communities in action: Pathways to health equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. 2018. Opportunities for improving programs and services for children with disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NASEM. 2019. The promise of adolescence: Realizing opportunity for all youth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nath, J. B., S. Costigan, and R. Y. Hsia. 2016. Changes in demographics of patients seen at federally qualified health centers, 2005–2014. JAMA Internal Medicine 176(5):712–714. National Committee for Quality Assurance. 2018. Prenatal and postpartum care (PPC). https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/measures/prenatal-and-postpartum-care-ppc/ (accessed February 6, 2019). National Quality Forum. 2016. Perinatal and reproductive health 2015–2016. Final report. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum. NCDHHS (North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services). n.d. Early childhood action plan. https://www.ncdhhs.gov/about/department-initiatives/early-childhood/early-childhood-action-plan (accessed May 9, 2019). NCQA (National Committee for Quality Assurance). n.d. Accounting for socioeconomic status in HEDIS measures. https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/reports-and-research/hedis-and-the-impact-act/ (accessed June 20, 2019).Newacheck, P. W., P. P. Budetti, and N. Halfon. 1986. Trends in activity-limiting chronic conditions among children. American Journal of Public Health 76(2):178–184. NICHQ (National Institute for Children’s Health Quality). 2016. Promoting young children’s (ages 0–3) socioemotional development in primary care. Boston, MA: National Institute for Children’s Health Quality. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 1989. Caring for our future: The content of prenatal care. A report of the Public Health Service Expert Panel on the Content of Prenatal Care. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. NY Department of Health. 2017. Value-based payment for children: Report to the NYS Medicaid VBP Workgroup. New York: New York Department of Health. O’Malley, J., M. O’Keeffe-Rossetti, R. Lowe, H. Angier, R. Gold, M. Marino, B. Hatch, M. Hoopes, S. Bailey, J. Heintzman, C. Gallia, and J. DeVoe. 2016. Health care utilization rates after Oregon’s 2008 Medicaid expansion: Within-group and between-group differences over time among new, returning, and continuously insured enrollees. Medical Care Research and Review 54(11):984–991. Olson, C. A., S. D. McSwain, A. L. Curfman, and J. Chuo. 2018. The current pediatric telehealth landscape. Pediatrics 141(3). Opray, N., R. M. Grivell, A. R. Deussen, and J. M. Dodd. 2015. Directed preconception health programs and interventions for improving pregnancy outcomes for women who are overweight or obese. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (7). Oregon Health Authority. 2018. CCO 2.0 Recommendations of the Oregon Health Policy Board. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Authority Health Policy and Analytics Division. Osterman, M. J. K., and J. A. Martin. 2018. Timing and adequacy of prenatal care in the United States, 2016. National Vital Statistics Reports 67(3):1–14. Padarthy, S., K. Knudson, and S. Vattikuti. 2019. The social determinants of health: Applying AI and machine learning to achieve whole person care. Teaneck, NJ: Cognizant Digital Business. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-66 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Pai, N., S. Kandasamy, E. Uleryk, and J. L. Maguire. 2016. Social risk screening for pediatric inpatients. Clinical Pediatrics 55(14):1289–1294. Palmer, L., A. Cook, and B. Courtot. 2010. Comparing models of maternity care serving women at risk of poor birth outcomes in Washington, DC. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 16(5):48–56. Park, E. H. M., and G. Dimigen. 1995. A cross-cultural comparison: Postnatal depression in Korean and Scottish mothers. Psychologia 38(3):199–207. Pastor, P. N., C. A. Reuben, and C. R. Duran. 2015. Reported child health status, Hispanic ethnicity, and language of interview: United States, 2011–2012. National health statistics reports; No. 82. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. n.d. Defining the medical home. https://www.pcpcc.org/about/medical-home (accessed June 5, 2019). Perrin, J. M. 2012. How can quality improvement enhance the lives of children with disabilities? The Future of Children 22(1):149–168. Perrin, J. M., and T. G. Dewitt. 2011. Future of academic general pediatrics—areas of opportunity. Academic Pediatrics 11(3):181–188. Perrin, J. M., M. W. Shayne, and S. R. Bloom. 1993. Home and community care for chronically ill children. New York: Oxford University Press. Perrin, J. M., L. E. Anderson, and J. Van Cleave. 2014. The rise in chronic conditions among infants, children, and youth can be met with continued health system innovations. Health Affairs 33(12):2099–2105. Perrin, J. M., E. Zimmerman, A. Hertz, T. Johnson, T. Merrill, and D. Smith. 2017. Pediatric accountable care organizations: Insight from early adopters. Pediatrics 139(2). Perrin, J. M., J. R. Asarnow, T. Stancin, S. P. Melek, and G. K. Fritz. 2019. Mental health conditions and health care payments for children with chronic medical conditions. Academic Pediatrics 19(1):44– 50.Picklesimer, A. H., D. Billings, N. Hale, D. Blackhurst, and S. Covington-Kolb. 2012. The effect of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on preterm birth in a low-income population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 206(5):415.e411–415.e417. Piper, J. M., E. F. Mitchel Jr., and W. A. Ray. 1994. Presumptive eligibility for pregnant Medicaid enrollees: Its effects on prenatal care and perinatal outcome. American Journal of Public Health 84(10):1626–1630. Poels, M., M. P. Koster, H. R. Boeije, A. Franx, and H. F. van Stel. 2016. Why do women not use preconception care? A systematic review on barriers and facilitators. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 71(10):603–612. Radcliffe, J., D. Schwarz, and H. Zhao. 2013. The MOM Program: Home visiting in partnership with pediatric care. Pediatrics 132:S153–S159. Robbins, C., S. L. Boulet, I. Morgan, D. V. D'Angelo, L. B. Zapata, B. Morrow, A. Sharma, and C. D. Kroelinger. 2018. Disparities in preconception health indicators—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013–2015, and Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, 2013–2014. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 67(1):1–16. Ross, L., and R. Solinger. 2017. Reproductive justice: An introduction. Vol. 1. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Rossin-Slater, M., and L. Uniat. 2019. Paid family leave policies and population health. Health policy brief. Bethesda, MD: Health Affairs. Rudowitz, R., M. Musumeci, and C. Hall. 2019. February state data for Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas. Washington, DC: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Rushton, F. E., W. W. Byrne, P. M. Darden, and J. McLeigh. 2015. Enhancing child safety and well- being through pediatric group well-child care and home visitation: The Well Baby Plus Program. Child Abuse and Neglect 41:182–189. Saha, S., M. C. Beach, and L. A. Cooper. 2008. Patient centeredness, cultural competence and healthcare quality. Journal of the National Medical Association 100(11):1275–1285. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-67 Sandel, M., M. Hansen, R. Kahn, E. Lawton, E. Paul, V. Parker, S. Morton, and B. Zuckerman. 2010. Medical-legal partnerships: Transforming primary care by addressing the legal needs of vulnerable populations. Health Affairs 29(9):1697–1705. Sarvet, B., J. Gold, J. Q. Bostic, B. J. Masek, J. B. Prince, M. Jeffers-Terry, C. F. Moore, B. Molbert, and J. H. Straus. 2010. Improving access to mental health care for children: The Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project. Pediatrics 126(6):1191–1200. Schwarz, E. B., S. M. Parisi, S. M. Handler, G. Koren, G. Shevchik, and G. S. Fischer. 2013. Counseling about medication-induced birth defects with clinical decision support in primary care. Journal of Women’s Health 22(10):817–824. Sege, R. D., and L. Amaya-Jackson. 2017. Clinical considerations related to the behavioral manifestations of child maltreatment. Pediatrics 139(4):e2017010. Sege, R., G. Preer, S. J. Morton, H. Cabral, O. Morakinyo, V. Lee, C. Abreu, E. De Vos, and M. Kaplan- Sanoff. 2015. Medical-legal strategies to improve infant health care: A randomized trial. Pediatrics 136(1):97–106. Shekarchi, A., L. Gantz, and A. Schickedanz. 2018. Social determinant of health screening in a safety net pediatric primary care clinic. Pediatrics 142(1 MeetingAbstract):748–748. Silva, R., M. Thomas, R. Caetano, and C. Aragaki. 2006. Preventing low birth weight in Illinois: Outcomes of the family case management program. Maternal and Child Health Journal 10(6):481– 488. Silverstein, M., C. Mack, N. Reavis, T. D. Koepsell, G. S. Gross, and D. C. Grossman. 2004. Effect of a clinic-based referral system to Head Start: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 292(8):968–971. Skogen, J. C., and S. Overland. 2012. The fetal origins of adult disease: A narrative review of the epidemiological literature. Journal of the Royal Medical Society Short Reports 3(8):59. Smith, R., S. Dobbins, A. Evans, K. Balhotra, and R. A. Dicker. 2013. Hospital-based violence intervention: Risk reduction resources that are essential for success. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 74(4):976–980; discussion 980–982. Smith, A. J. B., and A. T. Chien. 2019. Adult-oriented health reform and children’s insurance and access to care: Evidence from Massachusetts health reform. Maternal and Child Health Journal 23(8):1008– 1024. Solotaroff, R., J. Devoe, B. J. Wright, J. Smith, J. Boone, T. Edlund, and M. J. Carlson. 2005. Medicaid programme changes and the chronically ill: Early results from a prospective cohort study of the Oregon Health Plan. Chronic Illness 1(3):191–205. Sommers, B. D., R. J. Blendon, E. J. Orav, and A. M. Epstein. 2016. Changes in utilization and health among low-income adults after Medicaid expansion or expanded private insurance. JAMA Internal Medicine 176(10):1501–1509. Sommers, B. D., S. K. Long, and K. Baicker. 2015. Changes in mortality after Massachusetts health care reform. Annals of Internal Medicine 162(9):668–669. Sommers, B. D., A. A. Gawande, and K. Baicker. 2017a. Health insurance coverage and health—what the recent evidence tells us. New England Journal of Medicine 377(6):586–593.Sommers, B. D., B. Maylone, R. J. Blendon, E. J. Orav, and A. M. Epstein. 2017b. Three-year impacts of the Affordable Care Act: Improved medical care and health among low-income adults. Health Affairs 36(6):1119– 1128. Sommers, B. D., A. L. Goldman, R. J. Blendon, E. J. Orav, and A. M. Epstein. 2019. Medicaid work requirements—Results from the first year in Arkansas. Special report, June 19. New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1901772 (accessed July 19, 2019). Sonfield, A. 2017. Why protecting Medicaid means protecting sexual and reproductive health. Guttmacher Policy Review, Vol. 20. Washington, DC: Guttmacher Institute. Stancin, T., and E. C. Perrin. 2014. Psychologists and pediatricians: Opportunities for collaboration in primary care. American Psychologist 69(4):332–343. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-68 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Stecker, E. C. 2013. The Oregon ACO experiment—bold design, challenging execution. The New England Journal of Medicine 368(11):982–985. Stern, A. M. 2005. Eugenic nation: Faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America, 1st ed. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Steuerle, C. E., and J. B. Isaacs. 2014. The scheduled squeeze on children’s programs: Tracking the implications of projected federal spending patterns. Health Affairs 33(12):2214–2221. Stille, C., R. M. Turchi, R. Antonelli, M. D. Cabana, T. L. Cheng, D. Laraque, J. Perrin, and Academic Pediatric Association Task Force on Family-Centered Medical Home. 2010. The family-centered medical home: Specific considerations for child health research and policy. Academic Pediatrics 10(4):211–217. Stockwell, M. S., E. O. Kharbanda, R. A. Martinez, C. Y. Vargas, D. K. Vawdrey, and S. Camargo. 2012. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 307(16):1702–1708. Straus, J. H., and B. Sarvet. 2014. Behavioral health care for children: The Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project. Health Affairs 33(12):2153–2161. Stuebe, A., J. E. Moore, P. Mittal, L. Reddy, L. K. Low, and H. Brown. 2019. Extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum moms. Health Affairs Blog, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190501.254675/full/ (accessed June 12, 2019). Suglia, S. F., K. C. Koenen, R. Boynton-Jarrett, P. S. Chan, C. J. Clark, A. Danese, M. S. Faith, B. I. Goldstein, L. L. Hayman, C. R. Isasi, C. A. Pratt, N. Slopen, J. A. Sumner, A. Turer, C. B. Turer, and J. P. Zachariah. 2018. Childhood and adolescent adversity and cardiometabolic outcomes: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 137(5):e15–e28. Szilagyi, M., B. D. Kerker, A. Storfer-Isser, R. E. Stein, A. Garner, K. G. O'Connor, K. E. Hoagwood, and S. McCue Horwitz. 2016. Factors associated with whether pediatricians inquire about parents' adverse childhood experiences. Academic Pediatrics 16(7):668–675. Taffel, S. 1978. Prenatal care, United States, 1969–1975. DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 78-1911. Hyattsville, MD: U.S Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics. Tanner-Smith, E. E., K. T. Steinka-Fry, and M. W. Lipsey. 2014. The effects of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care on gestational age, birth weight, and fetal demise. Maternal and Child Health Journal 18(4):801–809. Team Up for Children. n.d. Team Up for Children. www.teamupforchildren.org (accessed April 16, 2019). The Lancet. 2018. Campaigning for preconception health. The Lancet 391(10132):1749. Thich, C. B. N. 2016. Doula support as a means to improve birth outcomes for minority women. Master’s Projects and Capstones 477, https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/477/ (accessed April 12, 2019). Thiel de Bocanegra, H., M. Braughton, M. Bradsberry, M. Howell, J. Logan, and E. B. Schwarz. 2017. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum care and contraception in California’s Medicaid program. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 217(1):47.e41–47.e47. Thielen, K. 2012. Exploring the group prenatal care model: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Perinatal Education 21(4):209–218. Tieu, J., E. Shepherd, P. Middleton, and C. A. Crowther. 2017a. Interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8. Tieu, J., P. Middleton, C. A. Crowther, and E. Shepherd. 2017b. Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8. Too, G., T. Wen, A. K. Boehme, E. C. Miller, L. R. Leffert, F. J. Attenello, W. J. Mack, M. E. D'Alton, and A. M. Friedman. 2018. Timing and risk factors of postpartum stroke. Obstetrics & Gynecology 131(1):70–78. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

LEVERAGING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 5-69 Torpy, S. J. 2000. Native American women and coerced sterilization: On the Trail of Tears in the 1970s. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 24(2):1–22. Trivette, C. M., and C. J. Dunst. 2014. Community-based parent support programs. http://www.child- encyclopedia.com/parenting-skills/according-experts/community-based-parent-support-programs (accessed January 30, 2019). Tumin, D., R. Miller, V. T. Raman, J. C. Uffman, and J. D. Tobias. 2019. Patterns of health insurance discontinuity and children’s access to health care. Maternal and Child Health Journal 23(5):667–677. Turner Lee, N. 2018. Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 16(3):252–260. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. CPS table creator [data tool]. https://www.census.gov/cps/data/cpstablecreator.html (accessed July 16, 2019). United Hospital Fund. 2018. UHF and New York State partner to benefit youngest children. https://uhfnyc.org/news/article/uhf-and-new-york-state-partner-to-benefit-youngest-children/ (accessed May 9, 2019). Van Buren, R. 2018. State approaches to financing social interventions through Medicaid. https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/State-Approaches-to-Financing-Social- Interventions-through-Medicaid.pdf (accessed June 25, 2019). Van Cleave, J., A. A. Boudreau, J. McAllister, W. C. Cooley, A. Maxwell, and K. Kuhlthau. 2015. Care coordination over time in medical homes for children with special health care needs. Pediatrics 135(6):1018–1026. Vedam, S., K. Stoll, M. MacDorman, E. Declercq, R. Cramer, M. Cheyney, T. Fisher, E. Butt, Y. T. Yang, and H. Powell Kennedy. 2018. Mapping integration of midwives across the United States: Impact on access, equity, and outcomes. PLoS One 13(2):e0192523. Verbiest, S., E. McClain, and S. Woodward. 2016. Advancing preconception health in the United States: Strategies for change. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences 121(4):222–226. Veugelers, P. J., and A. M. Yip. 2003. Socioeconomic disparities in health care use: Does universal coverage reduce inequalities in health? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57(6):424– 428. Vonderheid, S. C., K. F. Norr, and A. S. Handler. 2007. Prenatal health promotion content and health behaviors. Western Journal of Nursing Research 29(3):258–276, discussion 277–283. Waggoner, M. R. 2013. Motherhood preconceived: The emergence of the Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 38(2):345–371. Wallace, J., and B. Sommers. 2016. Health insurance effects on preventive care and health: A methodological review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50:S27–S33. Weinick, R. M., and N. A. Krauss. 2000. Racial/ethnic differences in children’s access to care. American Journal of Public Health 90(11):1771–1774. Wherry, L., G. Kenney, and B. Sommers. 2016. The role of public health insurance in reducing child poverty. Academic Pediatrics:S98-S104. Whitworth, M., and T. Dowswell. 2009. Routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4). WHO (World Health Organization). n.d. Chronic diseases and health promotion. https://www.who.int/chp/chronic_disease_report/part2_ch2/en/ (accessed July 19, 2019). Williams, S. G., C. M. Brown, K. H. Falter, C. J. Alverson, C. Gotway-Crawford, D. Homa, D. S. Jones, E. K. Adams, and S. C. Redd. 2006. Does a multifaceted environmental intervention alter the impact of asthma on inner-city children? Journal of the National Medical Association 98(2):249–260. Women’s Preventive Services Initiative. n.d. Well-woman preventive visits. https://www.womenspreventivehealth.org/recommendations/well-woman-preventive-visits/ (accessed January 10, 2019). Wong, C. A., J. M. Perrin, and M. McClellan. 2018. Making the case for value-based payment reform in children’s health care. JAMA Pediatrics 172(6):513–514. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

5-70 VIBRANT AND HEALTH KIDS Woolf, S. H. 2019. Necessary but not sufficient: Why health care alone cannot improve population health and reduce health inequities. Annals of Family Medicine 17(3):196–199. Yamauchi, M., M. J. Carlson, B. J. Wright, H. Angier, and J. E. DeVoe. 2013. Does health insurance continuity among low-income adults impact their children’s insurance coverage? Maternal and Child Health Journal17(2):248–255. Yogman, M., and C. F. Garfield. 2016. Fathers’ roles in the care and development of their children: The role of pediatricians. Pediatrics 138(1):e20161128. Zero to Three. 2017. HealthySteps evidence summary. Washington, DC: Zero to Three. Zero to Three. n.d.-1. Become a site. https://www.healthysteps.org/become-a-site (accessed July 18, 2019). Zero to Three. n.d.-2. National and site-level evaluations. https://www.healthysteps.org/article/national- and-site-level-evaluations-9 (accessed May 8, 2019). Zewde, N., and T. Berdahl. 2001. Children’s usual source of care: Insurance, income, and racial/ethnic disparities, 2004–2014. Statistical brief #501. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS

Next: 6 Creating Healthy Living Conditions for Early Development »
Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $95.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Children are the foundation of the United States, and supporting them is a key component of building a successful future. However, millions of children face health inequities that compromise their development, well-being, and long-term outcomes, despite substantial scientific evidence about how those adversities contribute to poor health. Advancements in neurobiological and socio-behavioral science show that critical biological systems develop in the prenatal through early childhood periods, and neurobiological development is extremely responsive to environmental influences during these stages. Consequently, social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors significantly affect a child’s health ecosystem and ability to thrive throughout adulthood.

Vibrant and Healthy Kids: Aligning Science, Practice, and Policy to Advance Health Equity builds upon and updates research from Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity (2017) and From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development (2000). This report provides a brief overview of stressors that affect childhood development and health, a framework for applying current brain and development science to the real world, a roadmap for implementing tailored interventions, and recommendations about improving systems to better align with our understanding of the significant impact of health equity.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!