Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of an Elementary School-Based Telehealth Program

Utilization of telehealth in school-based health centers (SBHCs) is increasing rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effect on school absences and cost-benefit of telehealth-exclusive SBHCs at 6 elementary schools from 2015–2017. The effect of telehealth on absences was estimated compared to students without telehealth using negative binomial regression controlling for absences and health suite visits in 2014 and sociodemographic characteristics. The sample included 7,164 observations from 4,203 students. Telehealth was associated with a 7.7% (p = 0.025; 95% CI: 1.0%, 14%) reduction in absences (0.60 days/year). The program cost $189,000/yr and an estimated total benefit of $384,995 (95% CI: $60,416; $687,479) and an annual net benefit of $195,873 (95% CI: −$128,706; $498,357). While this cost-benefit analysis is limited by a lack of data on total healthcare utilization, the use of telehealth-exclusive SBHCs can improve student health and attendance while delivering cost savings to society.

‘How come they don’t talk about it in school?’ Identifying adolescent barriers to PrEP use

Although 21% of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnoses in the United States are in youth aged 13–24 years, adolescent awareness and uptake of the HIV prevention medication pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are low. This study explores the attitudes and challenges that adolescents face while taking PrEP. Thirty interviews were conducted with Black and Latine (we use the gender-inclusive term Latine rather than Latinx for more appropriate Spanish pronunciation) students aged 15–17 who received care at school-based health centers (SBHCs) in the Bronx, NY. Transcripts were coded inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. Most participants were unaware of PrEP, but nearly all were enthusiastic when informed about it; a majority denied that they would feel any stigma when taking PrEP. Despite this high receptivity, multiple barriers were identified, particularly confidentiality from parents, low perceived need of PrEP and concerns about daily adherence and side effects. Adolescents overall were enthusiastic about the availability of PrEP and felt it empowered them to have control over their health. SBHCs were considered trusted sources of confidential, accessible care, and we believe that they can be uniquely positioned to mitigate barriers to PrEP distribution in the future.

Elementary School–Based Health Centers and Access to Preventive and Asthma-Related Care Among Publicly Insured Children With Asthma in Georgia

Objectives We assessed the effects of 3 new elementary school–based health centers (SBHCs) in disparate Georgia communities—predominantly non-Hispanic Black semi-urban, predominantly Hispanic urban, and predominantly non-Hispanic White rural—on asthma case management among children insured by Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Methods We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis to measure changes in the treatment of children with asthma, Medicaid/CHIP, and access to an SBHC (treatment, n = 193) and children in the same county without such access (control, n = 163) in school years 2011-2013 and 2013-2018. Among children with access to an SBHC (n = 193), we tested for differences between users (34%) and nonusers of SBHCs. We used International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, Current Procedural Terminology codes, and National Drug Codes to measure well-child visits and influenza immunization; ≥3 asthma-related visits, asthma-relief medication, asthma-control medication, and ≥2 asthma-control medications; and emergency department visits during the child–school year. Results We found an increase of about 19 ( P = .01) to 33 ( P < .001) percentage points in the probability of having ≥3 asthma-related visits per child–school year and an increase of about 22 ( P = .003) to 24 ( P < .001) percentage points in the receipt of asthma-relief medication, among users of the predominantly non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SBHCs. We found a 19 ( P = .01) to 29 ( P < .001) percentage-point increase in receipt of asthma-control medication and a 15 ( P = .03) to 30 ( P < .001) percentage-point increase in receipt of ≥2 asthma-control medications among users. Increases were largest in the predominantly non-Hispanic Black SBHC. Conclusion Implementation and use of elementary SBHCs can increase case management and recommended medications among racial/ethnic minority and publicly insured children with asthma.