Pathways Community HUB Manual

A
Pathways Community
HUB Manual
A Guide to Identify and Address Risk Factors,
Reduce Costs, and Improve Outcomes

Pathways Community
HUB Manual
A Guide to Identify and Address Risk Factors,
Reduce Costs, and Improve Outcomes
Prepared for:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
www.ahrq.gov
Developed by:
Community Care Coordination Learning Network and The Pathways Community HUB Certification
Program (PCHCP)
Editorial Team
Mary Applegate
Laura Brennan
Valerie Kuenkele
Sarah Redding
Mark Redding
Supporting PCHCP Core Team
Brenda Leath
Veronica Nieva
Annette Pope
AHRQ Publication No. 15(16)-0070-EF
Replaces AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0088
January 2016

ii
This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without special permission.
Citation of the source is appreciated.
Suggested citation:
Pathways Community HUB Manual: A Guide to Identify and Address Risk Factors, Reduce Costs, and
Improve Outcomes. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); January
2016. AHRQ Publication No. 15(16)-0070-EF. Replaces AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0088.
The information in the Pathways Community HUB Manual is intended to assist service providers
and community organizations in creating a HUB to coordinate delivery of health care and social
services. The content was developed by the Pathways Community HUB Certification Program.
This manual is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for professional judgment. The
findings and conclusions are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not
necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this manual should be construed as an
official position of AHRQ or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition,
AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative
products may not be stated or implied. None of the investigators has any affiliations or financial
involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this manual.

iii
Contents
Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................................................1
Current Difficulty in Identifying and Addressing Risk Factors.........................................................2
Evidence Related to Risk Factors.......................................................................................................3
The Broken Business Model of Care Coordination..................................................................................4
A Way To Solve the Problem: Pathways Community HUB.....................................................................6
The Hub At Work - Part 1................................................................................................................7
The Hub At Work - Part 2................................................................................................................9
Summary of the Pathways Community HUB Model............................................................................11
Elements of a HUB...............................................................................................................................11
Infrastructure..................................................................................................................................11
Governance.....................................................................................................................................12
Quality Improvement.....................................................................................................................12
Sustainability...................................................................................................................................12
A Step-by-Step Guide to Building a Pathways Community HUB.........................................................14
Phase 1: Planning a HUB...............................................................................................................14
Step 1: Form a Planning Group...............................................................................................14
Step 2: Create a New Umbrella Organization or Designate a Lead Agency..............................15
Step 3: Complete Community Needs Assessment....................................................................16
Step 4: Discuss Sustainability Issues and Develop a Plan To Secure Funding...........................18
Phase 2: Creating Tools and Resources for the HUB......................................................................20
Step 5: Determine Initial Focus Outcomes and Related Pathways...........................................20
Step 6: Create Supporting Tools and Documents for Care Coordinators.................................29
Step 7: Develop Sustainable Funding Strategies for HUBs......................................................32
Step 8: Develop Systems To Track and Evaluate Performance..................................................38
Phase 3: Launching the HUB.........................................................................................................39
Step 9: Hire HUB Staff............................................................................................................40
Step 10: Train and Organize CCCs and Staff at Participating Agencies...................................40
Step 11: Conduct a Community Awareness Campaign...........................................................43
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................44
References..............................................................................................................................................45
Appendix...............................................................................................................................................47
Community HUB Template...........................................................................................................47
Community Care Coordination Learning Network.......................................................................48
Primary Resources for Current Evidence.........................................................................................51
Sample Pathways Forms..................................................................................................................56
Sample Checklists....................................................................................................................58
Glossary of Abbreviations Used in This Report......................................................................................65
Other Resources.....................................................................................................................................66

1
Introduction and Purpose
The Pathways Community HUB Manual is designed as a guide to help those interested in improving
care coordination to individuals at highest risk for poor health outcomes. The Pathways Community
HUB (HUB) model is a strategy to identify and address risk factors at the level of the individual, but
can also impact population health through data collected. As individuals are identified, they receive a
comprehensive risk assessment and each risk factor is translated into a Pathway. Pathways are tracked to
completion, and this comprehensive approach and heightened level of accountability leads to improved
outcomes and reduced costs.1
The most important functions of the Pathways Community HUB are to:
• Centrally track the progress of individual clients (to avoid duplication of services and identify and
address barriers and problems on a real-time basis);
• Monitor the performance of individual workers (to support appropriate incentive payments);
• Improve the health of underserved and vulnerable populations; and
• Evaluate overall organizational performance (to support appropriate payments, promote ongoing
quality improvement, and help in securing additional funding).
Community-based care coordination has a critical role in ensuring that individuals at risk connect to
the evidence-based interventions and services that will improve their outcomes. The current siloes and
fragmented approaches to care coordination that exist in communities often result in duplication of
services, ineffective interventions, and uncoordinated care.
The HUB provides centralized processes, systems, and resources to allow accountable tracking of those
being served, and a method to tie payments to outcomes. This guide describes the model, infrastructure
needed, and implementation strategies through a step-by-step approach.
Three overarching principles make up the foundation of the HUB model:
1. Find: Identify individuals at greatest risk and provide a comprehensive assessment of all health,
social, and behavioral health risk factors.
2. Treat: Ensure that each identified risk factor is assigned to a specific Pathway that will ensure the
risk factor is addressed with an evidence-based or best practice intervention (e.g., prenatal care,
specialty care, parenting education, housing, food, clothing).
3. Measure: Completion of each Pathway confirms that the risk factor has been successfully
addressed. Measurement also includes other outcomes that involve multiple risk factors
(e.g., improvement in chronic disease, reduction in emergency department [ED] visits and
hospitalizations, adult education, employment).
The intended audience includes all those involved in coordinating care for individuals at risk for poor
health outcomes. Key stakeholders include but are not limited to:
• Federal, State, and local government agencies.
• Community-based organizations using community health workers (CHWs) or community care
coordinators.
• Safety net clinics.

2
• Health plans.
• Accountable care organizations.
• Social service agencies.
• Local public health departments.
• Private practitioners.
• Hospitals.
• Public health departments.
• Charitable organizations.
• Private practitioners and businesses.
• Individuals served and the communities that serve them.
Current Difficulty in Identifying and Addressing Risk Factors
The United States spends significantly more money per capita on health care services than any other
nation in the world.2
The reality is that the United States lags behind most other developed countries in
terms of key outcome measures, including infant mortality, health equity,3
and patient perceptions of
safety, efficiency, and effectiveness. The primary sources of these adverse health and social outcomes are
risk factors.4,5
If risk factors are the source of poor outcomes and related expense, why isn’t the focus of
our health and social services system the coordinated and comprehensive identification and reduction of
risk?
The purpose of the HUB is to identify and address risk factors—primarily at the individual level but also
at the community-population level. Finding the specific individuals within communities who are most
likely to have a poor health outcome, addressing their specific needs, and accountably measuring their
results will influence the overall health of the larger community. The first community that piloted the
HUB model showed a countywide reduction in low birth weight by targeting the women most likely to
have a poor birth outcome.
Published and ongoing research shows that community care coordinators can successfully find and
engage the right individuals, complete a comprehensive risk assessment, and then partner with them
to overcome barriers to successful outcomes.1
This work can be done with accountability, cultural
competence, and a pay-for-performance approach that results in reduced risk, better outcomes, and
reduced cost.1,6,7
The HUB model requires that we look at risk from a new perspective. Some of the questions we need to
ask include:
1. Who is most at risk in our community?
2. What risk factors tie to the adverse health and social outcomes we need to address?
3. How can we comprehensively assess risk for each individual served?
4. In addition to identifying, tracking, and improving individual risk factors, how can we look at
population health?
5. How can we measure the economic benefit?

3
Evidence Related to Risk Factors
Care coordination is currently part of many health and social service funding streams, but it is
usually not evidence based. Evidence-based approaches are at the foundation of our modern health
care system, but the same rigor has not been applied to care coordination. There is great potential to
improve outcomes by using key strategies of comprehensive risk assessment, identification and tracking
of risk factors, and payment tied to reduction of risk.8
Five percent of the population represents more than half of the total health care cost.9
We need to
find and engage vulnerable individuals with proven strategies to improve health equity and outcomes.
Cultural competence is an essential factor in the workforce deployed to achieve this goal.
Risk factors related to health care represent less than 15 percent of the risk factor burden. If
we were able to identify the most at-risk individuals and confirm that they received the best health
care possible, it is estimated that we would only see a 10 to 15 percent improvement in their health
outcomes.4
Social determinants of health represent the largest percentage of the drivers behind many
poor health outcomes.4,10
Therefore, it is important to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to
identify and quantify all the risk burden an individual faces. In addition, accountability and pay-for-
performance strategies can be used to confirm that all identified risk factors are addressed and resolved.1
Fragmented approaches to care coordination are usually not effective. Care coordination is already
part of many local, State, and Federal health and social service funding streams, but it is delivered in
a silo-based structure. Multiple care coordinators can be assigned to one person based on the specific
needs that care coordinator is addressing. For example, one care coordinator might work with a client
to address effective use of her asthma medication puffer, while another might address infant safety, and
still another might address food issues or domestic violence. Across the spectrum of health, social, and
behavioral health services, a comprehensive approach centered on individuals and their risk factors is
needed to achieve better health, social, and economic outcomes.11
Some risk factors are considered to be “upstream” and some are “downstream.” When dealing
with downstream risk, the damage has been done, and the care coordinator is working to minimize
further damage. For example, an adult with a long history of smoking and severe chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease might experience multiple hospital admissions. Upstream risk factors are those that
can have an intervention before damage is done. In this case, a healthy newborn baby with no medical
issues may leave the hospital to go home to a house full of smokers. Intervention at this point has
substantial potential to affect health and related health care expenses many years later.
Lack of insurance and access to health care is a critical component of risk. Medicaid expansion
under the Affordable Care Act has significantly increased the number of individuals who now have
insurance.12
Unfortunately, some of the most vulnerable individuals at highest risk do not sign up. Care
coordination is an important component to address this risk factor as part of a comprehensive approach
to risk reduction.
Barriers for people who are insured. Health insurance is critical, but barriers still exist for many
individuals with insurance. Some of those barriers include inability to navigate the complex physical and
mental health care systems, high copayments and deductibles, lack of information on how to use their
insurance, and other issues such as lack of transportation, inadequate housing, and difficulty meeting
other basic needs.13

4
Disparate level of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. Racial and ethnic minority populations
face additional barriers leading to poorer health outcomes. African-American women have substantially
higher rates of low birth weight (LBW) babies,14
while Hispanics have disproportionate rates of
diabetes.15
Unequal access to care is one factor leading to poor hypertension control among Hispanic
populations.16
Risk factors involved in accessing care can include language and cultural differences,
mistrust of the health care system, financial constraints, and racism encountered within the health and
social systems of care.
Risk factors for those living in rural areas. Individuals living in rural areas represent 20 percent of the
population, yet only 9 percent of practicing physicians work in these areas.17
Therefore, rural residents
must often travel long distances for care and can experience long waits at clinics. Many do not receive
needed care in a timely manner.18
Basic social supports and services (e.g., medical and social service
providers, cell phone service, transportation) may not be as readily available in rural areas.
Risk factors for other groups. Other high-risk populations have specific needs that must be addressed.
Some groups to consider include adolescents, those with behavioral health conditions, individuals
leaving prison, and individuals with high medical debt. For example, care coordination using Pathways
has been used in Muskegon, Michigan, to reduce rates of recidivism for ex-offenders.
Not identifying, assessing, and addressing risk factors for individuals in a timely manner has two major
consequences. First and foremost, the consequence is human suffering. Second, costs are significantly
higher because delays in risk factor intervention and prevention result in expensive and catastrophic
health and social outcomes such as frequent ED visits, repeat hospitalizations, and failure to finish
school.
The Broken Business Model of Care Coordination
The process of identifying at-risk individuals and connecting them to the health and social services they
need is often referred to as care coordination. Care coordination is a broad term that is often thought of
as a process that occurs within the health care system. The HUB model specifically addresses community
care coordination, which can be defined as the coordination of services beyond the “walls” of the health
care system. A community care coordinator (CCC) in the HUB model is trained to meet individuals
in their homes or in a community setting to address all their identified issues. These needs may include
help with housing, transportation, employment, and education in addition to accessing health care
services.
Care coordination occurs within many different and most often isolated domains of the health,
behavioral health, and social service system. The current business model for delivering care coordination
services remains inadequate. For example, it is most common for care coordination services to focus on
“activities” that may or may not produce positive outcomes. And while more than one organization may
provide care coordination services within a given geographic area, generally little or no collaboration
occurs across these programs. Individuals fall through the cracks and efforts are duplicated. A high-risk
pregnant woman may have multiple care coordinators who do not interact with each other and another
high-risk person may have no care coordinator.
Three fundamental business model problems exist with the current approach to care coordination—
lack of meaningful work products, duplication of effort, and failure to focus on those most at risk. The
fragmentation and duplication of services and poor outcomes resulting from poor care coordination
increase health care costs.

5
The care coordination services purchased often have no confirmed benefit to the individual served.
Most care coordination services are purchased through local, State, and Federal government funding
streams. These contracts typically purchase “work products” that do not confirm a comprehensive
approach to the effective identification of and intervention with an individual’s risk factors. Payments
are based on process measures, such as number of individuals on a case list, visits or phone calls made, or
notes charted.
Duplication of care coordination is a burden to the budget and the individual served. Members
of the Pathways Community Care Coordination Learning Network (CCCLN) have reported
situations where clients have had 10 or more care coordinators at one time. It is quite common for an
at-risk individual to have four or five care coordinators. In most communities, these services are not
coordinated and result in significant duplication. Care coordination can cost up to $2,000 or more per
year per client served.
At-risk individuals have reported that it is challenging to have multiple people and agencies in their
homes collecting personal information and sometimes offering conflicting information. There may
be times when it is appropriate and necessary to have more than one care coordinator in a home, but
the reasons should be clearly documented. Communitywide standards for care coordination can help
identify and eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, leading to improved costs and outcomes.
There is no requirement or incentive to focus on high-risk individuals and to ensure that each
risk factor is addressed. It takes less time, expense, and cultural competency skills to serve lower risk
populations. Contracts that do not require services to those at greatest risk encourage agencies to “cherry
pick” by serving low-risk individuals and avoiding those with the greatest need.
For example, in current funding models, a care coordination program may be working to confirm that
80 percent of children in a defined population have received lead testing. Most children (85 percent)
may be relatively easy to reach. However, the remaining 15 percent of children and families may have
language barriers, lack telephones, or mistrust care coordinators who are not from their neighborhood.
If a care coordination program serves higher risk individuals, then they will have to work harder,
provide more hours of service, and ultimately make less money serving them under current contracting
strategies.
Fixing these problems requires a fundamental change in the way care coordination contracts are written.
Payments need to be scaled to recognize the number of risk factors an individual has and the time,
resources, cultural competence, and skills needed to effectively serve those at greatest risk. We need to
build a system of care with incentives to seek out and effectively serve those at greater risk instead of our
current system with unintentional financial incentives to avoid them.
American business has developed many service, product delivery, and tracking structures that support
accountability, quality, and confirmed results. Airports, package delivery firms, technology companies,
and other business models hold tremendous examples. Business leaders have brought their insights and
innovations to the development of the Pathways Community HUB model.
The business concept of “value stream analysis” works to identify and select the best value alternatives
for designs, materials processes, and systems to achieve more effective products/results. This concept was
originally applied to manufacturing and led to a transformative improvement.19

6
In a parallel manner, can the health and social service system identify each component needed to achieve
a positive health or social outcome? Can we then identify financial and programmatic strategies that
focus interventions on the populations most likely to benefit from them effectively and efficiently? Can
we comprehensively identify and address each risk factor in a business model approach?
American business and manufacturing score at the top for efficiency and effectiveness within
international rankings. In contrast, American health and social service systems and related expenses rank
near the bottom. Business system models combined with a community-connected, culturally competent
approach represent a substantial opportunity for significant improvement.
According to the latest National Standards from the Pathways Community HUB Certification Program
(PCHCP), HUBs must demonstrate both cultural competence and a business model approach that
ensures a comprehensive assessment and documentation of intervention for all risk factors identified.
Fifty percent or more of the HUB’s funding must be tied to specific health and social service outcomes
produced. This accountability of tying dollars to specific results has been demonstrated to produce better
outcomes, improved documentation, and increased efficiency.1,6
A Way To Solve the Problem: Pathways Community
HUB
Building a Pathways Community HUB will bring
together an accountable team of community-based
agencies that deploy CCCs to reach out to those
at greatest risk, assess their risk factors, and ensure
that they connect to care. As individual risks are
reduced, population-level health improves and
overall costs are reduced.
The codevelopers of the HUB model spent several
years in Alaska working with community health
workers (CHWs). Alaska has a large network of
certified CHWs located within high-risk communities. Alaska has progressed from reporting some
of the worst infant mortality statistics in the United States in the 1960s to some of the best today.
The CHW experience in Alaska and its regional supporting network were key building blocks in the
development of the HUB model.20
The Pathways model was the precursor to the Pathways Community HUB model. Pathways were
developed by the Community Health Access Project (CHAP) in the late 1990s, about the same time
that CHW programs were being established in Ohio. CHAP created Pathways as a response to funders
asking how the work that CHWs did could connect to improved outcomes.
CHAP designed and began using Pathways for all their enrolled clients in 2000 and started to see
noticeable changes in outcomes, specifically around LBW. Pathways were simply a tool used to identify,
track, and measure each risk factor through to a measurable outcome. Pathways were triggered by the
comprehensive risk assessment completed by the CHW when a client was enrolled. CHAP worked with
funders to change all contracts to outcome-based payment and developed strategies for payments related
to successful Pathway completion.

7
The success of implementing Pathways within a single agency, CHAP, led to the realization that the
model would be more successful if it could be used by all the agencies within the community working
with high-risk populations. CHAP worked with key stakeholders in Richland County, Ohio, including
local government agencies, community-based organizations, health care providers, community leaders,
and others, to develop the first HUB approach.
The CHAP Pathways Community HUB grew out of this first attempt to bring all care coordination
agencies together within the county. The HUB is the network that brings together care coordination
agencies and provides the infrastructure that is missing in most communities. The Pathways are the
specific tools the HUB uses to track an individual’s identified risk factors through to a measurable
outcome.
HUB initiatives then developing in Toledo and Cincinnati, Ohio; Albuquerque and Rio Arriba, New
Mexico; Oregon; Michigan; and other locations have substantially informed and shaped the model.
Today, the HUB model represents a national learning and quality improvement network organized
by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and supported through a broad base of funding
streams. Certification and related collaborative efforts among national health improvement initiatives
provide an opportunity for continued improvement, development, and spread.
The Hub At Work - Part 1
See the HUB Community Template in the Appendix for an illustration of how the HUB works.
Following is an example of the HUB in action.
Leah is 17 and pregnant. She is staying at a friend’s house for a few days because her parents threw her
out of the house for getting pregnant. Her friend has heard of a CHW named Kim who helped her
cousin when she was pregnant last year. Her cousin has Kim’s number, and they place a call.
Regional organization and tracking of care coordination
Community
HUB
Care
coordination
agencies
HUB—Client Coordination
• Demographic Intake
• Initial Checklist assign Pathways
• Regular home visits—checklists and Pathways completed
• Discharge when Pathways complete (no issues)

8
Kim works for one of the local care coordination agencies (CCAs), Community Vision, that is part
of the HUB network. There are a total of eight CCAs connected to the HUB that work with at-risk
pregnant women.
Kim meets the requirements to serve as a CCC in her HUB as she has been trained and certified as a
CHW. Kim is from the same community where Leah lives. The following day, Kim meets with Leah
at her friend’s house. Immediately, Kim explains the program and obtains an appropriate release of
information that protects Leah’s personal health information. Kim then checks in with the HUB to
make sure that there is not another CCC from one of the other agencies within the HUB network
already working with Leah. Using tablet-based technology, Kim determines that Leah is not yet enrolled
in the HUB and she is eligible for HUB community care coordination.
In a manner that is consistent across the HUB network, Kim goes through a checklist with Leah to
evaluate her medical, behavioral health, and social risk factors. As Kim works through the checklist
with Leah and comprehensively identifies risk factors, she begins to discuss options for housing, food,
clothing, medical care, and other supportive services. Kim begins to encourage her to client to reenroll
in school. Through conversation, Kim learns that Leah has always wanted to be a nurse and had been
making good grades in school before she got pregnant. After completing the initial checklist and
learning about the risk factors most important to Leah, Kim sends the risk factor information to her
supervisor.
Kim collaboratively works with both her supervisor and Leah to develop a care plan that addresses all
the identified risk factors. From Kim’s checklist, it is documented that Leah does not have housing,
adequate food, or health insurance; has not started prenatal care; and recently dropped out of school.
In addition, the two checklist questions related to depression were positive. Kim completed a full
depression screen that indicates Leah is at risk for depression. Each of these risk factors is identified and
tracked using Pathways in Leah’s plan of care.
Within a couple days, Kim finds Leah temporary housing. The establishment of stable housing
completes the Housing Pathway, and that outcome will take months of work. Kim links Leah to the
local WIC program for food and helps her enroll in the Medicaid program for insurance. Kim’s nurse
supervisor calls the local obstetric office and sets an appointment for Leah early the following week. As
each risk factor is addressed, the corresponding Pathway is completed.
Over a period of 18 months, Kim continues to work with Leah through regular home visits. During the
pregnancy she usually sees her twice a month. When the situation is more stable, she sees her every 2
months. At each home visit a new checklist is completed and the number of risk factors identified and
related Pathways needed goes down. Leah’s overall risk status improves as Kim tracks her progress over
time.
Leah attends almost all her prenatal visits. With help from Kim, she receives an initial evaluation,
diagnosis, and support from the behavioral health center. Three months after enrollment, Kim helps
Leah reengage with her family. Kim supports Leah in reenrolling in school and helps her look for
child care. During Leah’s pregnancy, Kim makes it a priority for Leah to receive education supporting
breastfeeding, safe sleep, evidence-based parenting, and many other critical items.
Leah has a healthy, normal weight baby girl. Kim visits her at the hospital and works with the nursing
staff to make sure everything is set up for going home, including a car seat and a pediatric appointment
for the baby. Kim even helps Leah get an outfit for the baby pictures. Kim follows up with Leah to make

9
sure she gets back to her obstetrician and completes the Postpartum Pathway involving the selection of
n acceptable method of family planning.
n the following months, Leah completes her GED and enrolls in community college. Leah’s risk
valuation is monitored and revisited by Kim’s supervisor on a regular basis. Leah’s risk assessment is
uch lower now than when she was first identified and enrolled in the HUB. Leah has been stable over
he past 6 months, and Kim lets her know that she will not be visiting as often but is available if needed.
nderstanding and addressing Leah’s comprehensive risk factors through Pathways and the supportive
ulturally connected relationship Kim has with Leah are the keys to improved outcomes and reduced
osts. The personal connection, combined with confirmed evidence-based interventions, helps Leah
tabilize her most basic needs, change her behaviors, and begin to make progress toward goals that can
ead to economic stability and better health for her and her family.
a
I
e
m
t
U
c
c
s
l
The Hub At Work - Part 2
As a CCC, Kim does not provide direct services.
Kim’s role is to engage Leah and identify the factors
that place her at risk for poor health outcomes. As a
CCC, Kim’s role is to find and connect Leah to the
evidence-based or evidence-informed interventions
and services that address each identified risk factor.
Kim works with an interdisciplinary team of experts
and resources.
Although Kim is a CHW, a CCC can be any
trained professional working through a CCA that works with individuals in the community setting.
The HUB then works as the center of the network to organize and coordinate all the CCAs that deploy
CCCs serving in the same role as Kim.
Payment from the local Community HUB is scaled and based on risk. The information that Kim
gathers is reported to her CCA, Community Visions, and to the community HUB. Reports are run to
determine risk status and to evaluate the speed and effectiveness of addressing each risk factor. Barriers
to addressing specific risk factors are recorded and evaluated individually and in combination with other
CCCs to identify barriers and inadequacies in the community service structure, both at the individual
and community-population level.
In addition to outcome reporting, the completed Pathways are tied to the billing report. Community
Visions reports their data in an ongoing manner to the HUB, which submits an invoice for payment
either biweekly or monthly. The payer in this case may be a Medicaid managed care plan, a State-funded
maternal and child health initiative, a local foundation, or any number of other funders. The HUB
works to diversify funding so that at-risk pediatric, pregnant, and adult clients who are identified have a
funding source to support outcome-focused community care coordination.
The HUB is responsible for ensuring that the entire CCA network adheres to the Pathways Community
HUB Certification Standards (available at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/certified-hubs/).
These national standards help ensure quality and fidelity to the evidence-based HUB model of care
coordination, as well as improved outcomes, reduced costs, and increased equity.

10
Pediatric, pregnant, and adult clients are each served in a similar manner from identification,
engagement, assessment of risk, and resolution of risk factors tied to Pathways. The Pathways are
standardized and when supported through Medicaid managed care have been tied to specific billing
codes acceptable to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Pathways have been
implemented in a large variety of geographic and cultural settings, and many different care coordination
funding streams.
This story is not as dramatic as many told across
the CCCLN. Families with small children have
been found in the winter living in the back of
deserted factories. Clients have been found under
bridges, in tents, and on the streets. The work of
the CCC begins with establishing a supportive
relationship, identifying basic social supports, and
helping individuals address health and behavioral
health needs. As the relationship grows, clients are
supported to go back to school or to find work
leading to real health and economic stability. This
basic approach of addressing survival-based priorities first is well established based on Maslow’s hierarchy
of human needs.
Even in the ancient story of the Good Samaritan, there is a comprehensive approach. The Samaritan
does not just bandage wounds, e-script an antibiotic, and bill for an office visit. He bandages the
individual’s wounds, provides transportation, finds him a place to stay, ensures that he has food, and
then checks back in to make sure he is getting back on his feet. Unless our health and social service
system begins to focus on those in greatest need and recognize a comprehensive approach to risk factors,
the revolving door at the ED, intensive care unit, and unemployment center will continue, and so will
the expense.
The HUB model recognizes the significant importance of trusting relationships. The individuals capable
of serving as effective CCCs are most often found within the communities at greatest risk targeted to
be served. When CHAP began the initial work in Mansfield, Ohio, they found their CHWs at the
local churches within the neighborhoods with the greatest poverty, highest LBW rates, and worse infant
mortality measures. The women identified were already serving their community through local church
initiatives. They were known and trusted by the community.
Knowledge and experience of the developers of the model from the Alaska Community Health Aide
Program led to the development of specific community college accredited training for CHWs. The
combination of specific training, practicum experience, and supervision by an engaged clinical provider
was found to be a critical factor to success.
Nurses and social workers in some communities have a history of serving at-risk neighborhoods and
can also serve very effectively in this role. Communities starting a new initiative should work to find
individuals who are known, trusted, and already connected to the most at-risk communities and grow
the program based on their foundation of experience and leadership. It was the wisdom and insight
of the CHWs that led to the basic principles and priorities of comprehensive assessment and a focus
on social determinants in addition to health care needs. The latest national recommendations for care
coordination now support their wise recommendations.11

11
A HUB, its network of CCAs, and their employed CCCs are an accountable community-based system
of care coordination. A HUB lends itself to managing multiple and diverse payer sources and ensuring
accountability for risk reduction and outcome improvement across its network.
Summary of the Pathways Community HUB Model
The HUB model is summarized by the following three steps:
1. Find.
2. Treat.
3. Measure.
1. Find
Find and engage those at greatest risk. Comprehensively identify each of their risk factors.
2. Treat
Each risk factor identified is assigned a specific Pathway. Pathways addressing health,
behavioral health, and social service interventions are tracked simultaneously to ensure evidence-
based and best practice interventions are received addressing each risk factor.
3. Measure
As risk factors are addressed, the Pathways are completed and a reduction in risk is recorded.
Nationally standardized Pathways are required.
Measures related to addressing many risk factors, such as reductions in emergency department
visits, reduced hospitalization rates, and improvements in hemoglobin A1c are tracked
separately from Pathways. They represent potential outcome improvements that are a result
of multiple health, social, and behavioral health risk factors and the completion of multiple
Pathways. Pathways that cannot be completed with the desired outcomes reached are recorded
as “finished incomplete.”
The HUB model of care coordination provides the tools, outcome reporting, and payment strategies to
help improve quality and outcomes while reducing costs. Through communication, collaboration, and
built-in incentives, the HUB increases the efficiency and effectiveness of care coordination services.
Elements of a HUB
Infrastructure
The HUB links together CCAs in a community or region. Although most communities already have
agencies that provide care coordination services, they are delivered in a fragmented approach. It is not
uncommon for a family to have three to five care coordinators in their home. This is not a fault of the
agencies, but rather the narrow programmatic funding for services at the local, State, and Federal level.
There can only be one Pathways Community HUB in a defined service area. To prevent duplication and
fragmentation of services, a HUB is needed as the central registry to track community care coordination.
The HUB is often described as “air traffic control” because it is constantly tracking and monitoring
service delivery and outcomes. The HUB must also be based in the region it serves because it must have
a thorough understanding of capacity, both of the CCAs and the direct service providers.

12
The HUB is a neutral entity and operates in a transparent and accountable manner. This means that the
HUB does not refer clients to any CCC that it may employ. The HUB’s role is to coordinate a network
of CCAs. CCCs employed by those agencies reach out to clients and ensure that they connect to needed
services: health, behavioral health, social, educational, and environmental.
Governance
The HUB is committed to improving the health of the community and is ultimately responsible to
the community. The HUB is required to have a community advisory board made up of members who
reflect the community and region the HUB serves. Engaged local leaders and community members are
essential to the creation of a successful HUB.
Quality Improvement
The HUB is responsible for monitoring and improving the quality of care coordination services
provided to those at risk as measured through clearly defined reduction of risk evaluated and quantified
by the completion of Pathways. Specific reporting of process, outcomes, and payment is required as
discussed below. The HUB must have a clearly defined quality improvement (QI) plan that defines
how services are evaluated at multiple levels, including the CCC, CCA, and HUB. There should be an
identified individual on the HUB staff specifically responsible for QI.
The HUB needs to have a description of how QI projects are selected, managed and monitored. The
schedule of QI reviews needs to be defined along with a plan that clearly addresses QI opportunities
through additional training or changes in policy. Key areas that should be addressed in the QI plan
include:
• Referrals.
• Engagement.
• Duplication of services.
• Home visiting.
• Supervision.
Sustainability
The HUB aligns payments with measured Pathway outcomes in its contracts with payers and CCA
members. The 20 standardized Pathways link billing codes to Pathway completion (see examples on
PCHCP Web site at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/certification-tools/). Payment for outcomes is
a critical component of the Pathways Community HUB model and promotes accountability, quality,
equity, health improvement, and value. To help ensure comprehensive and sustainable care coordination
services, the HUB must have diverse and multiple revenue sources. It is a prerequisite for certification
that the HUB have contracts with more than one payer. The Pathways Community HUB must conduct
a cost-benefit analysis to determine the financial impact of HUB services and if service efficiencies, cost
savings, and health improvements are achieved.

13
Figure1:ThePhasesandStepsofBuildingaPathwaysCommunityHUB
Step1
Formaplanning
groupand
reviewnational
HUBStandards.
Step2
Createa
newumbrella
organizationor
designatealead
agency.
Step3
Complete
communityneeds
assessmentor
reviewexisting
one.
Step4
Discuss
sustainability
issuesand
developa
plantosecure
funding.
Step5
Determineinitial
focusoutcomes
andrelated
Pathways.
Step6
Createand
implement
checklists
andrelated
documentsfor
carecoordinators.
Step7
Implement
Standardized
Pathwaysfrom
PCHCP.Create
incentivestiedto
outcomes.
Step8
Develop
systemstotrack
andevaluate
performance.
Step9
Hireandtrain
HUBstaff.
Step10
Trainstaffat
participating
agencies.
Launch.
Step11
Conducta
community
awareness
campaign.
Expandscope
andfunding.
Phase1
PlanningaHUB
Phase2
CreatingToolsand
ResourcesfortheHUB
Phase3
LaunchingtheHUB

14
A Step-by-Step Guide to Building a Pathways Community HUB
The remainder of this guide provides a three-phase, step-by-step process for building a Pathways
Community HUB. This process is intended to be a general guide rather than an exact roadmap, as local
circumstances should dictate the actual steps undertaken and the correct sequencing of those steps.
Reviewing the national standards and obtaining technical support from the Pathways Community HUB
Certification Program (PCHCP) and other public and private support agencies is critical.
Phase 1: Planning a HUB
Phase 1 involves the steps necessary to plan a Pathways Community HUB. These include identifying
and bringing key stakeholders from the community together. This team works together to focus on
priority needs and target populations. The issue of sustainability needs to be addressed in this beginning
phase as well.
Step 1: Form a Planning Group
Step 1 involves bringing together key community
stakeholders who show an interest in improving
the delivery of health and social services to at-
risk populations. It is imperative to include
representatives from the targeted populations
and the care coordinators who work with them.
Once the planning group decides to commit
to the Pathways Community HUB concept of
collaboration, they will begin to determine what individual will be considered the “Community Change
Agent” or leader of the local HUB initiative.
The planning group should also specifically examine the Pathways Community HUB Standards
for Certification. These standards will help them focus on key infrastructure, training, policies, and
procedures needed to reach certification. Following the evidence-based components of the model
defined in the certification standards is critical to achieving quality, outcomes, and cost savings.
Key questions to consider in Phase 1, Step 1:
• Which organizations should be involved in the effort, and how can we get those not involved
to come to the table? Candidates should include organizations already involved in community
care coordination (e.g., health and social service agencies, payers [health, social, and behavioral
health], policymakers and politicians, local charities, and other community-based organizations),
along with private businesses. The net should be cast wide when considering potential partners,
particularly with respect to private companies that may have an interest in helping. It is desirable
to have organizations involved with this process as early as possible (see HUB template in
Appendix).
• What organizations within the group are willing and able to contribute to the effort?

15
Step 2: Create a New Umbrella Organization or Designate a Lead
Agency
Depending on the outcome of the initial discussions, a decision should be made as to whether there
is a need to designate an existing agency as the lead for the effort or to create a new, formal umbrella
organization. In many cases, an existing organization with experience in building networks and tracking
data can be designated to serve as the lead agency or convener. If such an organization does not exist or
an agreement cannot be reached on a lead agency, the creation of a new entity likely makes sense.
In either case, appropriate governance structures should be set up, typically through an advisory group
made up of diverse community stakeholders. This organization will be responsible for providing the
common infrastructure and other resources needed by community stakeholders to more effectively serve
at-risk populations.
According to the standards, the HUB agency must serve as a neutral point of registration and QI
monitoring. The HUB cannot hire or deploy its own care coordinators. The HUB’s role in tracking
activities and results, producing quality outcomes, distributing referrals, and supporting the network’s
training and technology needs cannot show favoritism or be conflicted by referring clients to itself.
Key Points in Developing a HUB
• The HUB must be a neutral entity in the community and cannot employ its own care
coordinators.
• There is only one Pathways Community HUB in a community or region.
• The HUB must be an independent legal entity or an affiliated component of a legal entity.
• The HUB must be based in the community or region it serves.
• There must be a Community Advisory Board made up of members reflecting the community or
region the HUB serves.
Learning Network Examples
• In Toledo, Ohio, an existing nonprofit hospital network (CareNet) took on the role of the
designated lead agency developing the Northwest Ohio Pathways HUB.
• In Saginaw, Michigan, the Saginaw County Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP)
Steering Team assumed responsibility for determining which organizations would fill the
prescribed roles in the Pathways model.
– Saginaw represented one of three HUBs launched by the Michigan Public Health Institute
within a CMS innovation grant.
– The Saginaw CHIP Steering Committee has broad local leadership representing health and
public health initiatives, payers, and policymakers.
– The Saginaw Community Mental Health Authority was chosen as the lead agency, resulting
in the launch of Saginaw Pathways to Better Health.They had grant management and
Medicaid funding experience. Extensive experience with behavioral health and multiagency
network management were also identified as key strengths.

16
• The HUB for Pathways to a Healthy Bernalillo County is housed at the University of New
Mexico Health Sciences Center, but the program itself is community designed and community
driven.
– More than 80 percent of the county funds transferred to the HUB by the University of New
Mexico Hospital are redirected back to the community through a competitive application
process and professional services agreements with 14 partner organizations.
– The HUB monitors the performance of the partner organizations and receives monthly
invoices from each, which are paid largely based on deliverables (completed Pathways).
– The HUB also oversees the Web-based database, prepares quarterly reports, provides ongoing
training for the Community Health Navigators, coordinates standing monthly meetings, and
provides feedback on performance by each partner through periodic site visits.
– The HUB consults on a quarterly basis with its Pathways Community Advisory Group
composed exclusively of community members.
Step 3: Complete Community Needs Assessment
Determine Priority Health and Social Service Needs
In this step, HUB members examine local and regional data to determine the most critical health and
social service issues the HUB will address. Representatives of community-based programs, providers,
and agencies should meet with at-risk individuals who are members of the target population to better
understand the issues and barriers they face.
• The Pathways to Better Health of the Lakeshore is a Community HUB outgrowth of the
Muskegon Community Health Project (MCHP) that has used the Pathways model for many
years. The Pathways model was initially used by the Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative, a
statewide program designed to help newly released prisoners access services needed to facilitate
successful reentry into the community. MCHP convened a small group of individuals—
including former prisoners and representatives from hospitals, the county health department, and
other agencies that address medical issues for low-income populations—to clarify the barriers to
serving newly released prisoners. The key outcomes that they determined to be critical included
establishing a medical home and establishing basic social supports, including housing and food.
MCHP was able to reduce the number of prisoners who quickly reentered prison by helping
them achieve success in gaining health, social, and employment-based stability.
• In Saginaw, Michigan, the Saginaw Pathways to Better Health initiative used a national
model called Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP). MAPP is a
communitywide strategic planning tool for improving community health. This tool was selected
because of its comprehensive approach to assessment, its national credibility, and its commitment
to collaboration with a community-driven approach. In 2011, MAPP incorporated and replaced
the formerly separate activity of two local hospitals, both of which had their own community
needs assessment process. This represents a very collaborative endeavor and the single process
for the assessment of the health of Saginaw County residents. MAPP includes the County
Department of Public Health in addition to the hospital systems.

17
• The Michigan Ingham Pathways to Better Health Initiative evaluated community data and
received funding through a Michigan Policy Health Institute CMS Innovation grant to serve
Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible adults with multiple chronic conditions. Further target
population focus is occurring through the CMS State Innovation Model (SIM) initiative that will
guide the target populations for services. Obesity, infant mortality, and chronic conditions are
current focus areas of the SIM initiative.
• The Northeast Oregon Network (NEON) staff and Community Leadership Team reviewed
community health assessments to determine the areas of greatest health disparities. They
identified high prevalence rates of diabetes and cardiac disease in excess of State and national
averages, indicating a health disparity. In addition, community assessment data indicated that
more than half of the population was living at 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level or less. A
further growth trajectory for these conditions was anticipated due to an aging population.
Choose Target Areas or Populations for Intervention
A community needs assessment, which includes local data specific to medical, behavioral health, social,
environmental, and educational factors, should guide the HUB in its efforts to improve health and
reduce inequities. Hospitals, health departments, and other community partners should work together
to assess community health needs and resources, and create a shared plan for addressing those needs.
One or two community “champions” need to be identified to drive this process forward to move from
a review of the needs assessment to a strategy building session. Once a community needs assessment
has been completed or reviewed (if conducted no more than 3 years prior), the planning group needs
to review the findings and determine which at-risk populations will be targeted for community care
coordination services.
Most Pathways Community HUBs start out serving a targeted portion of the at-risk population. The
development of the HUB infrastructure allows additional at-risk populations to be added at a later time
when the HUB has more experience with the model.
Key Points in Identifying the Target Population
• Baseline data exist for the targeted population.
• Payers have expressed interest in this population and would consider paying for Pathway
outcomes.
• Existing CCAs in the community or region have the capacity to serve this population.
• The HUB and CCAs have staff who can provide culturally and linguistically proficient services to
the targeted population.
HUBs need to carefully choose specific target areas or populations for intervention.
• The CHAP initiative partnered with more than 70 local agencies, including Jobs and Family
Services, Help Me Grow, MedCentral Hospital, Richland County Foundation, New Hope,
Richland County Children Services, local outreach agencies, Richland Public Health, and many
others.

18
• These agencies prioritized all the issues identified through review of community needs assessment
data and agreed to focus initially on reducing the incidence of LBW. They all worked together
in early 2004 to form the first Pathways Community HUB. CHAP used a process known as
“geocoding” to identify the highest risk areas for LBW infants. Some census tracts were found to
have LBW rates as high as 24 percent.14
• The Health Care Access Now (HCAN) initiative in Cincinnati brought together a group of
stakeholders, including health and social service providers. This team assessed the current
level and capacity of care coordination and outreach services offered to high-risk populations.
They then designed a more strategic approach to assisting specific subpopulations in receiving
appropriate care. They jointly decided to target their first project to at-risk pregnant women.
Step 4: Discuss Sustainability Issues and Develop a Plan To Secure
Funding
Funding and sustainability considerations should begin with Step 1 by inviting potential payers to
be part of the key stakeholders planning group. Once the needs of the target area or population are
understood, the planning group needs to carefully consider how to secure funding to start and maintain
the Pathways Community HUB. Often, multiple sources of funding may be available, including:
• Local foundations.
• Local, State, and Federal agencies.
• Third-party payers, such as Medicaid managed care organizations (through contracts with the
HUB for services provided).
• Grant funding to finance the initial planning or startup of the venture.
• HCAN in Cincinnati secured multiple funding streams to initiate the Pathway Programs
currently offered, including the Cincinnati Health Department, UC Health, Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation in partnership with the Health Collaborative, United Way of Greater
Cincinnati, Interact for Health, and Deaconess Association Foundation. The Health Foundation
of Greater Cincinnati provided initial grant support for the formation of HCAN.
• NEON in Oregon identified startup funding in Federal and foundation grants.
– A Centers for Disease Control Small Community Transformation grant was used to create
and implement a CHW training program, create a Community Leadership Team, develop
detailed HUB policies and procedures, and educate about the model to build momentum.
– Implementation funding has been provided by the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) Office of Federal Rural Health Policy through a Network
Development Grant.
– The Meyer Memorial Trust has also provided additional funding for outcome payments for
completed Pathways.
• United Way of Franklin County is exploring the startup of a new HUB initiative in Columbus,
Ohio. United Way programs have been supportive in many communities to provide both startup

19
and sustainable funding. For the CHAP program in Ohio, United Way funding has been a
critical source of support for at-risk clients who do not qualify for any other available funding
source. With a proven track record of supporting multiple agencies across a community network,
United Way organizations should be considered as a potential partner and leader of HUB
development.
• Rural and Urban Access to Health (RUAH) in Indianapolis, Indiana, applied for funding from
HRSA’s Healthy Communities Access Program, receiving a 4-year grant in 2001. St. Vincent
also formed a partnership with Indiana Health Centers, ADVANTAGE Health Solutions,
Inc., Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, and the Butler University College
of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. This partnership provided additional funding and in-kind
assistance to RUAH.
• Michigan, with leadership, research, and support from the Michigan Public Health Institute has
been working to support sustainability and growth strategies for their three HUBs in Ingham,
Muskegon, and Saginaw. They have received substantial support though the Center for Medicaid
Innovation. Their initial very positive results in cost savings for enrolled members have supported
continuation funding for all three initiatives. They are working on contracting strategies with
Medicaid Managed Care.
• CHAP began with the support of several organizations, including the Richland County
Foundation, the Osteopathic Heritage Foundation, Richland County Jobs and Family Services
(Temporary Assistance to Needy Families dollars), and an American Academy of Pediatrics
Community Access to Child Health grant. These funds helped support the development of
services to at-risk individuals in rural and urban areas, along with the development of the
Pathways approach (see Step 5 for more details on this program).
Long-term success requires finding an ongoing, stable source of funding, as initial grants usually cover
only the startup phase to build infrastructure. In some cases, these funds may come from service
contracts between the Pathways Community HUB and payers (e.g., Medicaid managed care programs)
or other organizations that fund services for at-risk individuals. Securing contract provisions that provide
such funding requires the ability to demonstrate reduced cost of care and improved outcomes.
Community HUBs in Hamilton, Lucas, and Richland Counties in Ohio have successfully secured
sustainable funding through Medicaid managed care organizations. Ohio’s Department of Medicaid,
Department of Health, Commission on Minority Health, and Voices for Ohio’s Children have all
worked together and individually to help develop, sustain, and support the work of HUBs. This work in
Ohio continues to receive bipartisan support and has seen significant progress over the years.
Not-for-profit hospitals can be good sources of ongoing funding. They are required to allocate money
to community health improvement initiatives and must report such activity to the Internal Revenue
Service each year. To meet their “community benefit” obligations, hospitals can provide both cash
donations and in-kind support to such activities.
Another interesting option worthy of consideration is the use of a local property tax levy to support
HUB operations. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the county has approved a tax to fund the Pathways
to a Healthy Bernalillo County through the University of New Mexico Hospital. This levy, similar
to taxes that fund the local health department and children’s services, provides a long-term source of
funding that needs to be renewed only every 8 years. Local governments in many communities have the
authority to initiate such taxes.

20
A final option to be considered is to urge governors, State legislatures, and other government officials
to allocate funds to support HUB infrastructure development and ongoing operations. Oregon, for
example, passed legislation providing $250,000 over 2 years to an organization known as HealthMatters
of Central Oregon to support the development of a Pathways program.
While many promising options for securing sustainable funding exist, long-term success requires
confirmed results. Following the national HUB certification standards has been found to be critical in
obtaining results. Multiple initiatives have used a portion of the model and have not fully embraced
the requirements for risk focus, cultural competence, pay for performance, and accountability to
demonstrate return on investment. Without following the certification requirements, many of these
initiatives have not been able to demonstrate results and have not been sustainable.
Fidelity to the Model in Attracting Funds
Certification and demonstration of the correct deployment of the model can help convince
policymakers and funders of the critical nature and effectiveness of the community care coordination
work. Stakeholders should educate potential investors about the ability of a Pathways Community HUB
to eliminate duplication of services, reduce risk, improve quality, and decrease the cost of care.
To achieve sustainability, policymakers and funders must receive education about the HUB model and
tools, and be empowered to demand that dollars begin to equate with the strategic identification and
reduction of risk factors. HUB certification must at the same time continue to use QI approaches to
respond to the realities of communities in serving those at greatest risk and the funders supporting them.
The process must be both supportive and accountable. Technical support, participation in research, and
use of certification to open doors to greater recognition and resources for developing Community HUBs
are critical. This represents a great opportunity in health care system reform to achieve better outcomes
with less cost.
Phase 2: Creating Tools and Resources for the HUB
Once the HUB has established a planning group, identified targeted areas or populations for
the intervention, and secured initial funding, the next phase is to select and design the required
infrastructure (e.g., tools, resources) to support community-based stakeholders serving the targeted at-
risk populations. The overall goal is to remove duplication of services and to identify and address risks.
Step 5: Determine Initial Focus Outcomes and Related Pathways
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine charged health care organizations, clinicians, purchasers, and other
stakeholders with “aligning the incentives inherent in payment and accountability processes with the
goal of quality improvement.”15
In response to this report, a movement developed to change the system
of accountability within the care coordination component of health care and social services. Approaches
included identifying key work products that represent a positive benefit for clients, tying financial
incentives to completion of those work products, and developing “action steps” that help facilitate
success.
The Pathways Community HUB model, if used properly, can shift the focus of health and social service
systems away from activities to outcomes. The model represents a beginning effort to demonstrate that
effective care coordination can serve a critical role by comprehensively identifying and reducing risk.

21
“Pathways” serve as a tracking tool specific to each
identified risk factor. The Pathway then tracks and
documents each critical step, ending with ensuring
the risk factor has been addressed. The Pathway is
complete when a final outcome is achieved.
Some of the outcomes completed within a Pathway
are intermediate (e.g., confirmed appointment
with first medical home visit, successful delivery
of evidence-based education packages to prevent
obesity) and some outcomes are final (e.g., a
homeless person is confirmed to have established safe housing, an at-risk pregnancy results in confirmed
delivery of a normal birth weight baby).
In addition, Pathways provide the individual billable work product to tie financial incentives to
outcomes. These incentives are built to encourage and support CCCs in serving those at greatest risk,
helping them to overcome barriers and receive the interventions needed to improve outcomes and
reduce costs. In other words, Pathways serve as the documentation and reporting system that captures
each of the guiding principles outlined earlier—i.e., finding those at risk, treating them with evidence-
based interventions, and measuring the results of these efforts.
Pathways are part of ensuring a comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing risk factors:
• A Pregnancy Pathway seeks to ensure adequate prenatal care in order to improve birth outcomes,
such as reducing the incidence of LBW infants and infant mortality.
• A Family Planning Pathway seeks to reduce the number of women with unintended pregnancies.
• The Housing Pathway ensures the establishment of suitable housing.
• Some of the Pathways break out specific subcategories that allow programs to document and
report greater detail as they address specific risk factors. The Social Service Referral Pathway
has a coding approach that supports definition and tracking of referrals for specific needs. The
Education Pathway supports the delivery and documentation of any number of evidence-
informed “packages” of education. Programs delivering packages of health, social, and behavioral
health education can demonstrate the confirmed delivery of each education package with a pre-
and post-test to evaluate the client’s understanding. Culturally connected CCCs with positive
client relationships can be trained and supported to serve in a highly effective educational role
promoting changes in behavior for their clients and families.
– The Internet is now a common source of information, including for at-risk individuals and
families. Much of the information is not evidence informed and can even represent a danger.
Using the Education Pathway, HUB networks can define the specific evidence-informed
package of information addressing nutrition, diabetes management, employment readiness,
and a host of other issues. This can provide a higher quality standard for the delivery of
education by CCCs.

22
– An example with particular potential and impact is parenting focused on expectant mothers
and families with children. The delivery of evidence-based parenting information and
education works as an upstream preventive intervention impacting future educational,
economic, and health-related outcomes.
- Evidence-based parenting education has been shown through research to result in parents
having more positive interactions and reinforcements with their children, combined with
a less emotional approach to discipline. Increased positive interactions by parents has been
connected to future school performance, decreased behavior problems, reduced use of
children’s services, and reduced youth services involvement.21, 22, 23
- Success in education is the single greatest factor tied to employment and future economic
success. Economic success is the single most powerful indicator of future health and health
care.10,24
- Positive parenting is tied to future educational and economic success. Parenting is an
upstream risk factor with the ability to convert to a protective factor and is an important
example when looking for ways to improve future economic and disease-burdened
outcomes.
– In the CHAP neighborhoods served in Richland County, Ohio, it has been demonstrated
that up to 50 percent of the boys in identified census tracts will serve time in prison.
- Local leaders at the Mental Health Center (Catalyst) funded by the Richland County
Foundation and in partnership with the HUB have recently launched a new initiative
focused on this outcome.
- Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) education with a strong evidence base is being
launched by training local CCCs and providing them with Internet-based educational
tools and videos that they will provide to families within the targeted census tracts.
- The parenting-focused Educational Pathway is being provided as part of a comprehensive
risk evaluation and reduction approach to address housing, food, health care access, and
other issues.
• A Medication Assessment Pathway is a way for a CCC to take a snapshot of how individuals are
really using their medication in their homes. The CCC completes a comprehensive Medication
Assessment Chart for all prescription, over-the-counter, herbal, and alternative medicine used
by the client. The CCC is trained to record all the information in the client’s own words. This
Pathway is complete when the identified primary care health professional receives this in-
home review of medications. If this review indicates clients are not taking their medications as
recommended, the Medication Management Pathway can be used to educate them and ensure
that they begin taking the medication as directed by their physician.
• A Medical Home Pathway monitors individuals who do not have ongoing primary care and
confirms that they have connected to a patient-centered medical home. It is one thing to establish
a medical home, but it takes ongoing education and support to work with individuals who have
never had a regular place of care. Multiple Pathways can be used to support the proper use of the
medical home once it is established.

23
The simplicity and targeted focus of each Pathway is a critical element in working with individuals
and in the full system of care. Based on the recommendations of the CCCLN, standardized Pathways
were developed; each one focused on a specific risk factor or risk area to be addressed. Each Pathway is
documented and recorded separately. Risk factors that cannot be addressed despite significant effort by
the CCC and their supervisor are labeled as “Finished Incomplete.” These Pathways receive additional
focus and evaluation across the HUB network.
In the development of research and billing approaches for Pathways, it is also critical to have a consistent
unit of recognized service. The national HUB certification standards require that the Pathways programs
use be standardized and drawn from the nationally approved set. This standardization is critical for the
overall evaluation and billing methodology within the HUB model. Pathways represent both the billable
unit and the measurable outcome.
Alternative Models to Pathways
Pathways are not the only model that can be used to track and create accountability for
performance. For example, the Bridges to Excellence program (online at
http://www.hci3.org/programs-efforts/bridges-to-excellence/recognition_programs) pays
incentives to physicians caring for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases based on
performance with respect to the provision of specific, evidence-based processes, as compared
to benchmarks. Ongoing tracking, incentive payments, and feedback help to promote
continuous improvement.
When funders, such as Medicaid managed care organizations or health departments, are trying to
develop contracts and payment approaches with communities, it becomes very difficult to develop and
implement pay-for-performance contracting strategies when every community in the State is using a
completely different set of Pathways. Research becomes more meaningful if all programs across the
State are using the same basic Pathways, because now it is possible to demonstrate the significance of
obtaining stable housing, food, clothing, a medical home, and employment for at-risk individuals and
families. This information can be documented and demonstrates how many individuals are having
difficulty and significant time delays in achieving the risk reduction outcomes demonstrated in each
Pathway.
According to the national standards, it is acceptable for programs to add information that is collected
and some additional components to the common national Pathway structure. Whenever possible (as
discussed under checklists), if additional questions and data are needed, the checklists are usually the
best and most flexible location to place these requirements when building a HUB system. The nationally
standardized set of Pathways is available at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/certification-tools/.
The First Pathway Step - “Initiation Step”
The “initiation step” identifies the specific risk factor that the Pathway seeks to address. Individual
HUBs may add information to this step to help ensure that the focus remains on a narrowly defined at-
risk group or targeted region. The initiation step not only defines the risk factor identified but also ties
back to financial contracts that will state exactly which Pathways/risk factors can be paid for through the
contract. The contract will define exactly which age groups or specific risk-related groups meet eligibility
for payment.

24
Examples of Pathway initiation steps:
• Medical Home - Client needs a medical home (ongoing source of medical care).
• Housing - Client and/or family is in need of affordable and suitable housing.
• Medical Referral - Client needs a health care appointment.
• Pregnancy - A woman is confirmed to be pregnant.
• Smoking Cessation - Client states that he/she is a cigarette or tobacco user.
Examples of additional HUB information that has been included for the Pregnancy Pathway:
• “Any woman living within the targeted census tracts and confirmed to be pregnant with a
pregnancy test”
• “Any woman confirmed to be pregnant with a pregnancy test that meets the criteria of high risk
as outlined in the contract”
There are many strategies used across HUBs to define high risk based on geocoding and risk factor
scoring approaches.
Action Steps - Actions Documenting Evidence-Based and Best Practice Interventions
That Address the Risk Factor
Action steps represent the middle steps of the
Pathway. They document the specific evidence-
based and best practice interventions for addressing
the identified risk factor. Action steps must meet
any and all requirements documented in the
completion step.
The action steps have been developed in a way that
tries to encompass the needed variation of specific
interventions found within community HUB
service regions, such as those based in urban or rural
areas. Some Pathways have one or two action steps required to reach the completion step, while others
have multiple action steps, as noted above. Tracking the steps within a Pathway is a critical part of the
process to understand how to be more successful in reaching the outcome. Analysis of CCCs who are
higher producers of completed Pathways will help to outline the process to train other CCCs to be more
successful. It is similar to the careful, methodical QI processes in a number of other fields.
In some cases, the outcome is reached even though not all of the action steps are completed. For
example, an expectant mother may be found and enrolled at 36 weeks gestation, and then delivers her
infant after receiving only one prenatal visit. If the birth of a viable normal birth weight infant is the
only requirement for completion within the completion step, then the Pathway can be documented
as completed even though the action steps were not completed. In Pregnancy Pathway measurements,
billable events occur within the action steps, making this type of situation less rewarding financially and
encouraging earlier intervention and completion of all action steps when possible.

25
Action steps are documented within the Pathway in logical order. They need not be completed in
consecutive steps (i.e., one after the other), as the order can be changed to best fit the needs of an
individual client. Sometimes the first action step is a necessary prerequisite to other steps being
completed, thus representing a “rate-limiting” step that could delay completion. For example, a
Pathway focused on childhood immunizations might list educating the family about the importance of
immunizations as the first action step. This step is critical since getting parents on board is a necessary
prerequisite to moving forward with the other steps. Addressing the issues that cause these steps to be
rate limiting can often improve the production process.
Significant evidence is available to support the critical nature of behavior change as part of improving
health and social outcomes. Pathways that document provision of specific education work to promote
behavior change. CCCs also use motivational interviewing strategies to promote readiness for change.
The strength of positive and trusting relationships between the CCC and client has been identified as a
necessary ingredient to informing and supporting clients as they work through behavior changes (e.g.,
stopping smoking during pregnancy, completing adult education classes, finding employment).
Private business production methodologies not only look at production steps but also look at micro-
steps in the specific and sometimes highly detailed barriers that may slow down or significantly inhibit
the production process. In the same way, during Pathway completion, it is very valuable for CCCs to
be able to document specific challenges they encounter in trying to work through the action steps of
the Pathway. Simple issues, such as an impolite receptionist at the front desk of a health care provider’s
office, may be a much greater obstruction to care than is realized or documented. Failure to reach
the completion step can be analyzed on the individual client level, but also on the population level to
monitor for systemic issues.
The “Completion Step”
In the completion step, the outcome is clearly defined, easy to understand, based on accepted criteria,
and measurable. The Pathway is not documented as “Complete” unless this step has been achieved, and
thus the risk factor successfully addressed. Examples of completion steps include the following:
• Medical Home - Confirmation that the first appointment for the medical home was kept.
• Housing - Confirmation that the individual has moved into an affordable and suitable housing
unit for a minimum of 2 months.
• Immunization Referral - Confirmation that the client’s immunization record has been reviewed
and is up to date.
The completion step must provide objective measurement of a positive outcome in order to be marked
complete. The outcome must be an occurrence that has a substantial basis for positive impact to the
individual served and includes the following subtypes:
• Intermediate Outcome - Confirmation that the individual has received an evidence-based or
best practice intervention that is known to improve or to have a positive impact on the client
served. A diabetic client, for example, is not confirmed to immediately be in better diabetic
control when she is confirmed to have received her first medical home visit. The likelihood of
having a better outcome, however, has a basis for improving. The same is true if it is confirmed

26
that at-risk individuals receive evidence-based nutritional or parenting education, immunizations,
behavioral health services, and other services. These events are substantially different than
current processes and activities that are the focus of care coordination contracts now. Process-
based events, such as confirmation that a client is on a caseload, assessment or paperwork was
completed, or a phone call was made, do not have an evidence basis for improving outcomes.
• Final Outcome - This category of Pathway completion occurs when the identified risk factor
has been addressed and a final outcome is confirmed. Examples of strong positive outcomes are
stable housing has been established, a normal birth weight infant has been born, a secure source
of food has been established, and employment has been verified. It is possible that the individual
may develop the same risk factors again, for example, with the second pregnancy or becoming
homeless, and Pathways would need to be reinitiated.
Most payments that are tied to HUB-related care coordination services focus on the completion step
of Pathways. Most research, evaluation, and demonstration of positive outcomes will come from the
appropriate documentation of the completion steps. Research evaluating Pathways completion looked
at a pay-for-performance approach compared with tracking Pathways without payments attached. It has
been demonstrated that pay for performance improves both the documentation and speed of Pathways
completion and risk reduction.6
It is also critical to document and separately designate Pathways that cannot be completed.
1. Complete - This category represents a Pathway that the CCC, and if needed, his or her
supervisor, has confirmed to be completed. The requirements of the national standards and any
additional requirements of the HUB or their funder must be confirmed. Specifically, it represents
that the risk factor that was identified within the initial or ongoing assessment has been addressed
with evidence-based or best practice intervention.
2. Finished Incomplete - A risk factor was identified and a Pathway was attempted to be completed
with due diligence. Action steps and related activities occurred working toward addressing this
risk factor. Yet, for reasons that must be documented, the risk factor could not be addressed.
Pathways may be finished incomplete when a client suddenly moves away and cannot be located.
It sometimes occurs when the risk factor identified has no available services for intervention.
Examples include:
– An individual may need behavioral health services and no services are available within the
next 12 to 18 months.
– An individual may need stable housing and may be ineligible or unable to secure housing
within 1 to 2 years despite significant attempts by the CCC.
It is important to consider all possible options before documenting a Pathway as finished
incomplete. Finished incomplete Pathways for an individual can serve as a very important data
point for population-level evaluations across caseloads, agencies, HUBs, and States. The inability
of a CCC, agency, or HUB to address specific risk factors documented in aggregate reports can
show funders and policymakers where gaps exist and needs are greatest that may require changes
in policies or distribution of resources.

27
Specific policies and procedures are required to provide guidance to CCCs and their agencies to qualify
a Pathway as “complete” or “finished incomplete.” Some Pathways do require extended time. When
reports are generated related to specific CCCs or CCAs, they may unintentionally encourage them to
close Pathways not completed in order to remove them from the report.
The procedures established should discourage premature closure of Pathways. They can represent an
important risk factor for the client still needing them to be addressed. Similar reporting based on how
long a Pathway has been open or the time it takes to complete can also provide critical information.
The Pathway completion step remains one of the most critical risk reduction indicators and should be
emphasized in an initial and ongoing manner within HUB initiatives.
The Role of the Pathways Community HUB Certification Program
PCHCP serves as the national center for assessing community HUB compliance with established
standards for implementing the HUB model. As part of the CCCLN established by AHRQ, PCHCP is
founded on QI principles and focused on learning from communities and individuals using the model.
The establishment of a national approach for the certification of Community HUBs was funded by the
Kresge Foundation in 2012. The Community Health Access Project, Communities Joined in Action,
The Rockville Institute, and The Georgia Health Policy Center have served as the coalition of national
organizations to lead this development.
Through support from Kresge, initial pilot sites in Toledo, Ohio; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and
Saginaw, Michigan, were taken through a first approach to HUB certification. Based on lessons learned
and guidance from a diverse group of national stakeholders, the approach has been further developed
and improved.
Certification is now an established approach and work is in progress with regional HUB initiatives in
more than 15 communities across the United States. Research, which has been fostered and published
within the network, serves as a steadily improving source for refining the national HUB standards at
PCHCP.
Development of improvements to existing Pathways are occurring now and are expected to continue
to occur. The changes and improvements are not as frequent as they were early in the model’s first
development more than 12 years ago. Continued research and national sharing of best practices is
encouraged and has been a great benefit to the growth and development of the model.
The HUBs currently following the national standards and accountably participating in certification
are demonstrating positive outcomes, reduced costs, and growth of their HUB initiatives (See Primary
Resources for Current Evidence in the Appendix).
Putting It All Together: Pathway Examples
The chart on the next page provides a common structure on an entire Pathway—including the initiation
step, action steps, and completion step. Examples of specific Pathways can be found on the PCHCP
Web site at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/certification-tools/.

28
Figure 2. Pathways Common Structure
Initiation Step
Defines the risk factor.
Examples: Homelessness, pregnancy, lack of insurance, inadequate food
Additional clarifications of specific populations or risk factors may be
here based on funding or other local requirements.
Action Step 1
Provide standardized education to the client/family regarding the problem identified.
Barriers to achieving each of the Action Steps are documented.
Action Step 2
Identify and develop a plan to eliminate identified barriers.
Barriers can include transportation, concern of the patient due to the cultural setting or
geographic location of the service. The client’s motivation and willingness to comply with
the service can also be a significant barrier.
Action Step 3
Assist client/family in identifying available service to address the issue with evidence-
based or best practice intervention.
This may include scheduling appointment, arranging transportation, submitting forms, etc.
Action Step 4
Confirm that the intervention was received. In some Pathways there may be multiple
interventions (e.g., Pregnancy with multiple prenatal visits).
Completion Step (must be measurable outcome)
1. Intermediate Outcome - Confirm that an evidence-based or best practice
intervention has been received (e.g., behavioral health visit confirmed, evidence-
based parenting educational series completed, immunizations up to date, confirmation
of first visit to medical home).
2. Final Outcome - Confirm the resolution or significant improvement of an identified
risk factor (e.g., normal birth weight infant, suitable housing, child care established).

29
Step 6: Create Supporting Tools and Documents for Care
Coordinators
This section discusses additional required documentation tools to implement the Pathways Community
HUB model. Tools are presented in the order that they might be used for a newly enrolled client. Unlike
the nationally standardized Pathways, the forms in this section have flexibility to adapt to local data
collection needs.
Consent Form/Notice of Privacy Practices/Release-of-Information Forms
These forms confirm that the client is comfortable having his or her information turned in to the
central Pathways Community HUB. In addition, they lay out the program’s privacy policies (which
need to conform to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requirements),
give permission for the collection of additional information, and explain the client’s rights and
responsibilities, including complaint and grievance procedures.
These forms can be used by anyone who is working with at-risk individuals in need of comprehensive
care coordination services available through the Community HUB. Optimal HUB enrollment is
achieved when there are many avenues for identification and referral of at-risk clients. The local
librarian, schoolteacher, minister, or nurse at the specialty clinic could be taught how to assist an at-risk
individual or family to become connected and enrolled. Several of the current HUB communities have
partnered with their local 211 programs, who can also help identify and refer individuals to the HUB.
The process to accomplish privacy protection within a HUB is essential. It works to confirm that
HIPAA requirements are followed, while also ensuring that there are no significant barriers between at-
risk individuals and the interventions they need to address risk. The CCC, who is known and trusted in
the community, is a key partner in this first step and can achieve this needed balance.
When communities are considering building a HUB, HIPAA issues are often one of the first questions
brought up as a barrier. How can you have a communitywide network and maintain HIPAA? HIPAA
requirements need to support the concept of team-based care and not be used as an impediment.
Technology solutions, as well as paperwork approaches, can ensure information is shared in a need-to-
know manner. Security approaches based on passwords and firewalls can allow CCAs within the HUB
to access information for their clients while not being permitted to access information for other clients.
Based on the individual’s permission, the HUB can have access to all the CCA client information related
to serving the client’s needs.
CCCs must have training and expertise to provide the necessary education to clients and to assist them
in completing the HIPAA-related forms. CCCs cannot gather any personal health information for the
HUB without obtaining permission from clients to serve them within a HUB network of agencies. It is
important to always ensure that privacy is protected and that HIPAA is not used as a barrier to serving
at-risk clients.
Intake/Enrollment Form
Unlike the nationally standardized Pathways, intake and enrollment forms can vary between different
HUBs. Within a HUB, there needs to be standardization across all data collection tools. This includes
information captured at enrollment, including basic demographic data, referral information, agency
enrolling the client, and date the information is submitted to the Pathways Community HUB.

30
The HUB uses demographic information for multiple tracking, mapping, and outcome reporting
purposes. Some of the enrollment information, including the address, may be part of the risk factor
analysis (risk scoring) approach of the HUB. One important function of the HUB is to use basic
demographic information to identify potential duplication of service. (See sample initial enrollment
form in the Appendix.)
Assessment Via Checklist
This step focuses on the identification of health, social, and behavioral health risk factors. The CCC
works with the client to fill out a checklist that includes “trigger questions”—i.e., questions for which
a “yes” answer indicates a specific risk factor and a Pathway should be assigned. For example, “Do you
need a medical home?” “Do you need help paying for utilities?” “Do you need to find safe housing?”
The checklist is critical for gathering information, since many clients will not always volunteer to
share concerns about domestic violence, mental health issues, or loss of health insurance coverage
unless specifically asked. Like the enrollment form, the national HUB standards promote flexibility in
the development and implementation of checklists to meet the needs of the targeted population and
community.
Checklists have the following common subcategories:
• Initial - This checklist is completed when the client is enrolled. The initial checklist most often
collects more data to establish a client’s baseline risk assessment. Because of all the data collection
involved, the completion of this checklist may involve more than one visit.
• Followup - This checklist is completed every time a CCC has a face-to-face visit with a client.
It is designed to track progress on the previously identified risk factors and to discover any new
risk factors that may have developed since the last visit. For example, the client has established a
medical home and achieved stable housing, representing completion of both the Medical Home
and Housing Pathways. However, on a followup visit, the CCC discovers through the checklist
questions that the client has recently experienced domestic violence, and additional Pathways
need to be initiated.
• Client - Checklists might be broken out in different categories based on the clients served by the
HUB. These client types might include adult male, adult female, pediatric, and pregnant.
In addition, based on the national HUB Standards, the checklists should be linguistically and culturally
appropriate and tie effectively to the nationally standardized Pathways through assessment of all relevant
health, social, and behavioral health risk factors.
The checklists or enrollment forms should be a first consideration if new data items need to be captured.
Adding data requirements into Pathways should be the last resort. Pathways are best when they have
the greatest simplicity. All HUBs must meet the required data collection elements of the standardized
Pathways.
Keeping the Pathways intact and the checklists short should be a central goal in developing the HUB.
Complicated data requirements will decrease data collection accuracy, increase time spent by the CCC,
and create barriers to Pathway completion. The HUB’s strength of simplicity is directly tied to its
efficiency and effectiveness.

31
Plan of Care Using Pathways
The primary purpose of the plan of care is to ensure
that all the risk factors a client has are identified and
addressed. Specific risk factors identified within the
checklist should, in the large majority of cases, tie
directly to nationally standardized Pathways.
The CCC shares the plan of care with his or her
supervisor either electronically or on paper. If
the CCC is a registered nurse or a licensed social
worker, then he or she is not required to have
supervision. If the CCC is a CHW, then a supervisor is required under the HUB model standards. The
supervisor may also add Pathways based on the checklist responses or change the priority of Pathways in
the care plan.
The national certification standards require specific policies and procedures to document the expected
timelines and accountable communication process between the CCC and the supervisor as they develop
and implement the plan of care. For CHWs, all of their initial and followup checklists, along with their
updated plan of care, must be reviewed and signed off by the supervisor in a timely manner.
CCCs are visiting the homes of the individuals at greatest health and social risk to collect health, social,
and behavioral health information. When CCCs are CHWs, they have significant training to work in
clients’ homes. Their training prepares them to work as part of an interdisciplinary team.
The team could include the advanced training and experience of a clinical provider, registered nurse, or
licensed social worker who can help support, prioritize, and appropriately manage the host of risk factors
presented. The importance of careful supervision is represented in research and within some of the
most advanced and effective CHW models in the world, including the Alaska Community Health Aide
Program.20
When the supervisor and CCC have signed off on a specific Pathway completion, an invoice can be
submitted electronically (or on paper) to the appropriate funder. Community-based care coordination
programs using traditional care coordination approaches often report extensive and challenging
invoicing procedures that take significant time and expense. Setting up the HUB’s Pathway completion
and related invoicing reports to be as automated and time efficient as possible is an important
component in achieving a sustainable and efficient HUB.
As Pathways are completed and risk factors are addressed, the number of risk factors for the client
goes down across the areas of health, behavioral health, and social services. Risk scoring and other
methodologies to demonstrate the reduction of risk related to HUB-focused care coordination are now
being piloted. The reduction of risk over time can track along with the reduction of stress. As risk factors
represent the primary source for adverse health, social, and economic outcomes as well as their related
costs, tracking the reduction of risk factors is the central data collection and reporting function of the
HUB model.
The HIPAA-compliant communication of risk factors identified and Pathways action plan should
be communicated with the medical and behavioral health home clinical providers whenever
possible. Partnership and collaboration in the development and prioritization of the community care

32
coordination plan of care can be very beneficial. Alaska represents one of the most advanced CHW care
coordination models and has built within it a strong partnership and communication between CHWs
and clinical providers.
HUBs should work effectively to support the development and completion of a risk reduction plan
of care for individuals and for the community they serve. HUBs can join together across States and at
the national level through PCHCP to accomplish similar analysis and risk reduction improvements for
individuals and populations.
Bringing in Outside Experts To Facilitate HUB Development
Most current Community HUBs received significant technical support from expert public and
private agencies to help them achieve community engagement, design the specific features
and requirements of the HUB, develop and implement training, select technology solutions, and
develop contracting and invoicing strategies for sustainability.
The Pathways Community HUB Certification Program has information and resources available
now and currently under development at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/.
Step 7: Develop Sustainable Funding Strategies for HUBs
The pay-for-performance component of the HUB model is critical to achieving the best outcomes at less
cost. The HUB certification standards require that a minimum of 50 percent of the overall payment to
the HUB initiative be tied to outcomes. Most of the health, social service, and behavioral health funding
streams currently do not have pay-for-performance requirements.
HUBs can use pay for performance as a leading marketing component of the HUB to engage funders
and policymakers in their support. It is also designed to be effective in sustaining the HUB through
appropriate pricing strategies and incentive structures that have demonstrated success.
A critical difference in the incentive structure for HUBs is the focus on at-risk populations and their
risk factors. In typical direct service and care coordination contracts, the provider of the direct service
or the CCA will earn more income and achieve greater financial stability by serving clients at least risk.
High-risk clients have many risk factors that also affect their ability to comply with appointments. No
shows and difficulties keeping scheduled visits is a key source of financial loss for direct service and care
coordination agencies.
High-risk clients will take significantly more time as they will usually have more issues to address. For
example, a client with two small children who has met the poverty guidelines (<200% of Federal Poverty
Level) and is eligible for care coordination could fit one of two profiles:
1. She has a safe home, a car, a job, and health insurance. The children’s father is involved and
providing some income and support. She is not depressed.
2. She lives in unsafe housing with large holes in the bathroom floor. She does not have medical care
or insurance. She has no transportation and no supportive family members. She scores high on
the depression screen.

33
Direct service providers and care coordinators report informally and through related research that the
second client can take 200 to 300 percent more time, especially for CCCs who must address social
as well as health risk factors. Since 5 percent of the population represents 50 percent of the cost, the
greatest concentration of our health disparity incentives must focus rewards and effectively support care
coordinators in serving those at greatest risk.
In the HUB model, client 1 might not even reach a risk factor score high enough to qualify for
comprehensive care coordination. On the first visit, the CCC may provide information on available
resources. When the risk identification information is presented to the HUB, many of the current
funders of HUBs would have threshold levels of risk that would place this client in a “call if you need us
status.” The client might also appreciate this as frequent home visits take time and may not be beneficial
in this situation.
In the HUB model, client 2 is at significant risk and represents an appropriate referral to the HUB, both
for programmatic and financial reasons. Because of her health and social risk factors, the CCA deploying
the CCC will make significantly more money than they would for client 1. The additional dollars are
needed for the additional time the CCC will spend with this client.
As client 2 is eventually connected to safe housing, insurance, medical care, food, education, and
employment, her risk factors are addressed and her total risk score goes down. The plan of care also goes
from 10 to 15 Pathways initially to no more than 2 or 3. At this point in the client’s service, which may
take 9 to 36 months, the dollars that the CCA earns serving this client have gone way down and the
client is no longer in need of intensive connections to services to stabilize her situation.
Following careful quality guidelines established by the local HUB, the CCC (with approval from her
supervisor) can discharge the client from active service. She will remain on a “call if you need us” status.
The CCC may check in periodically to make sure things are going well.
Developing contracts for HUB services should take advantage of national examples and lessons learned
so far. The Pathways themselves are the primary billing unit for service. Coding strategies have been
developed and implemented within Medicaid managed care contracts and other funding streams. (See
Pathways list at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/certification-tools/.) In addition, multiple “relative
value unit” (RVU) approaches are being piloted, with a national approach to RVUs in development.
United Healthcare, Buckeye Community Health Plan, CareSource, and Paramount have all
substantially contributed to this development.
A few Pathways support payments for steps within the Pathway. The Pregnancy Pathway, for example,
places the birth of a viable normal birth weight baby as the highest paying step. There are also smaller
payments for each confirmed prenatal visit as part of working toward completion. Even with substantial
intervention, some birth outcomes will not achieve the goal of normal birth weight. If the infant is
born with LBW, the program still receives a significant portion of the payment based on achieving the
intermediate steps of prenatal visits.
Extending incentives to CCCs for completing Pathways and serving those at greatest risk has been
piloted. Individual CHWs, social workers, nurses, and clinical providers serving at-risk populations
within CCAs can have a portion of their compensation tied to the achievement of outcomes and
intermediate action steps. This approach has demonstrated positive results and would benefit from
further testing.

34
How Do CCAs Serving in the HUB Network Receive Funding?
In most current examples, the HUB contracts directly with care coordination funders, including
government agencies, Medicaid managed care organizations, grant makers, United Way, and other
entities. The HUB then subcontracts with collaborating CCAs who hire and deploy CCCs to serve the
at-risk population.
The following are examples of some of the current general strategies that have been used successfully
within the HUB model:
• When building a new HUB and beginning new contracts with existing CCAs, a kick start
financial strategy is encouraged. This was first piloted in Toledo, Ohio (Northwest Ohio
Pathways HUB) to provide a startup payment allocation to CCAs willing to participate.
– Building an accountable network with existing CCAs and changing programs from process
to outcomes is not an easy philosophical or programmatic switch. CCAs need time and
resources to implement additional training, hire new staff, and use new data collection tools
and invoicing strategies.
– A startup funding allocation to CCAs can help significantly in gaining more buy-in,
participation, and good will among agencies. This has been in the range of $20,000 to
$25,000 in some initiatives and can have a broad range based on the location and scale of the
HUB.
– Startup grant dollars or some similar allocation is needed to fund and support the HUB.
Most of the funding streams currently sustaining HUBs use a pay for outcomes approach.
This type of startup funding allocation is not readily available. Additional flexible funding
should be identified for this function. Grant resources, State funding allocations, and private
business donations have been used for this purpose. The Ohio Commission on Minority
Health is an exciting new example of this approach to help Certified Community HUBs get
started in Ohio through funding approved by the Ohio Legislature.
• Payment can be assigned to each of the nationally certified Pathways or to all the Pathways that
are relevant to the population served by the HUB. A completed Pregnancy Pathway, for example,
may reach a value of up to $800 to $1,600 or more, including all steps. A Social Service Pathway
for establishing a secure source of food or child care may have a value of $40 or less.
– The payment and scale of sustainable payment varies significantly based on the level of risk of
the population served. The sustainable payment level also depends on other parallel payments
for the other Pathways and related components of the contract.
– The number of Pathways and related payments can be estimated for the average at-risk client.
This can be used to calculate sustainable pricing models. Some Pathways take a significant
amount of time and related expense and others are less time intensive. Technical assistance is
recommended in developing final payment schedules.
– Unpublished research has been completed to evaluate the number of hours taken for a CCC
to complete a specific Pathway. The cost to complete each Pathway was calculated using a
total unit rate cost of the CCC per hour. The unit rate takes into account the payment for the

35
CCC as well as time spent by the administrative staff, supervisor, and information technology
staff, as well as all other related overhead costs of the program. Payment per individual served
with community care coordination using Pathways was not found to be higher in cost than
traditional and less accountable care coordination strategies.
– Additional research and collaboration among HUBs and their payers nationally is needed
to develop more consistent and effective Pathway-based payment structures. Payment for
Pathways has been in place for more than 15 years within Ohio programs, and almost 10
years in New Mexico. This has provided experience and strategy for more current HUB
implementations.
• The HUB model supports some portion of the overall payment being tied to process-based
measures such as the completion of the initial checklist and enrollment information.
– Clients at greatest risk can be very challenging to track and locate following their initial
enrollment into the program.
– After enrollment paperwork is completed and a plan of care is developed, if the client moves
and cannot be found, the CCA can still receive some payment for the work completed.
– Especially for new implementation, some of the payment must be tied to process-based
measures to support the cash flow needed to sustain CCA operations.
– CCAs with experience finding those at risk and being paid for the reduction of their risk
factors using Pathways can support themselves and grow with this type of approach. It
does take time, and some traditional payment approaches are important as part of the mix,
especially in getting the system started.
• Pathways make the strategy of “braided funding” possible. One at-risk individual may be eligible
and receiving care coordination through several health and social service agencies. In the current
system, without a HUB, the duplication of service is not easy to identify. The HUB allows
collaboration among funders to eliminate service duplication and work toward an efficient
approach to comprehensive risk factor identification, Pathway initiation, and completion.
– In a braided funding approach, the funding is tied to the completion of Pathways and can be
allocated based on the specific type of Pathway completed.
- The Housing Pathway can be assigned to the social service funding stream.
- The Medical Home, Medical Referral, and Medication Assessment Pathways can be
assigned to the Medicaid managed care funding stream and the Behavioral Health
Pathway to a behavioral health funding stream.
– One CCC works with the client and systematically works through the risk factors, recording
progress with the HUB. The HUB, using the billing codes associated with each Pathway,
assigns the reimbursement to the appropriate funding stream.
– Pathways completion is the driver in this system. As this approach eliminates the need for
multiple care coordinators, the pricing and overall cost of care can be reduced. Braided
funding has not been fully implemented in any of the current HUBs. The infrastructure,
tools, and principles to benefit from this strategy are in place and there is work toward further
testing and evaluation.7

36
• There are many current examples of excellent accounting management of a broad array of care
coordination funding streams within HUBs, including:
– Medicaid managed care plans,
– United Way,
– Housing providers,
– Health departments,
– Behavioral health organizations, and
– Private business.
In these examples, each client and all his or her associated Pathways are assigned to a specific
funder. One CCC may have a variety of clients with different funding streams but are each
served with the structure and model of the Pathways Community HUB. The HUB ensures that
clients enrolled do not have multiple CCCs and that each funder receives reports on risk factors
being identified and addressed with Pathways. Infrastructure to support this level of accounting
expertise is required by the national HUB standards.
How Does the HUB Get Paid?
The HUB is recommended to serve as a thin (relatively inexpensive) component to the overall cost of
care coordination for the network of agencies providing the service. In most current funding strategies,
the HUB receives a percentage of the overall payment going to CCAs. As noted above, the HUB
administration is usually no more than two or three positions, depending on the size and scope of
operations.
Some HUBs provide additional supportive services to the CCAs, such as supervision of CCCs, billing,
and payroll functions. All these additional supportive functions can add to the administrative expense of
the HUB. It is critical to keep the percentage of funding going to the HUB as efficient as possible.
Policymakers and payers may see the HUB as an additional expensive administrative layer in a system
of care that already has many administrative layers and related expenses. The function of the HUB is to
identify and eliminate duplication of services, confirm payments for outcomes, and achieve documented
cost savings across the network of CCAs. It is critical to convince potential supporters of these benefits.
In evaluating a new HUB, the percentage cost of the HUB will directly relate to the overall size of
the network and total annual budget of the care coordination funding coming through the HUB. If
two highly skilled HUB directors are hired, and their benefits, office space, technology, and additional
consulting and support structures are put in place, this could easily reach a cost of $250,000 or more. If
they will be operating a HUB network that has an annual starting budget of $500,000, their percentage
of the initiative’s costs will be high. If they are operating a $4 million to $5 million dollar HUB
network, their percentage of the cost will be lower.
A goal percentage rate for the HUB administration may be estimated at 10 percent. This may require a
stepwise approach and would almost always involve a higher percentage when the HUB gets started.

37
The national standards require a HUB to demonstrate that 50 percent of dollars connect to outcome-
focused payments. The standards also require that each HUB have a credible strategy for demonstrating
both positive outcomes and cost savings (return on investment). When these requirements are met, it
becomes much easier for a HUB to justify its expense in a Nation with a system of care that is the most
expensive and least effective in the developed world in producing positive outcomes.
Impact to Date
Linking payment to outcomes within the payment strategy for CHWs continues to be controversial.
This was piloted in early 2001 to 2007 at CHAP and demonstrated an almost 300 percent increase in
the number of pregnant women effectively identified and served within several months of initiating the
program. As the local Community HUB, CHAP is now working with the agencies that deploy CHWs
to develop similar incentive approaches. CHAP’s incentive system produced a number of other benefits
for both individual CHWs and the organization as a whole, as outlined below:
• The most productive CHWs have realized substantial yearly income increases ($3,000 to $4,000
a year).
• CHAP was able to use data routinely collected from the incentive system as an objective tool
to measure employee performance during times of financial difficulty when layoffs became
unavoidable.
• Research has demonstrated Pathways that are provided when incentive structures are in place
are completed faster (more efficiently) and that the documentation (data collection) is more
accurate.6
Incentives should be considered part of developing a positive, supportive, and helpful work environment
for CHWs. They are in the homes of those at greatest risk. They need supervisory, emotional, and
financial support to be effective. CHWs can find themselves employed and compensated in a manner
that places them near poverty as they then try to serve clients in poverty. If there is any consideration of
an incentive program, especially for CHWs, these other factors should be addressed first.
The Importance of Partial Payments
As with American corporations, the Pathways model recognizes that not all outcomes will be
positive. When developing contracts and employee incentives, HUBs should build in adequate
payments for those Pathways that do not reach completion. Creating staged payments with some
level of compensation for the achievement of partial success—for example, getting a pregnant
woman into prenatal care, even if she ultimately delivers an LBW baby—makes sense. Failure to
do this will make it almost impossible for community-based care coordination programs to take
on at-risk patients.
At the same time, it is critical that contracts and grants secured by the HUB—and corresponding
incentive systems for individuals—not focus the financial reward to agencies or individuals
solely based on the percentage of clients served. As noted earlier, setting such a threshold—
such as screening 80 percent of the population for lead exposure—creates strong incentives for
organizations and individuals not to serve those at greatest risk—such as the 5 to 15 percent of
the at-risk population that does not have a phone, lives in unsafe or difficult-to-access housing, or
faces other barriers that make reaching them difficult.

38
Quality Improvement Resources
Quality assurance materials and resources will be available on the Rockville Institute PCHCP site:
https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/resources/.
Step 8: Develop Systems To Track and Evaluate Performance
As stated in the introduction, the most important functions of the HUB are to:
• Centrally track the progress of individual clients (to avoid duplication of services and identify and
address barriers and problems on a real-time basis);
• Monitor the performance of individual workers (to support appropriate incentive payments);
• Improve the health of underserved and vulnerable populations; and
• Evaluate overall organizational performance (to support appropriate payments, promote ongoing
quality improvement, and help in securing additional funding).
Rather than serving as a central repository for the full client chart, Pathways Community HUBs
typically set up an electronic system that captures a relatively limited set of client numbers and
identifiers; the typical HUB uses this system to perform the following functions:
• Register “new” clients through a centralized database to minimize duplications: As described
above.
• Monitor progress of individual clients; identify and address barriers: The database should also
provide up-to-date information to the various individuals and agencies involved, information on
how clients are progressing with respect to the initial identification of risk factors, and progress
using Pathways to reduce them. Some communities have used paper-based processes that allow
individuals to enter information on a form, while others are moving toward electronic (Web-
based) systems that allow real-time tracking.
The availability and practicality of electronic systems in some areas may be limited. Problems
include:
– Lack of access to high-speed Internet services,
– Outdated electrical wiring in older buildings, and
– Other problems inherent in underserved communities where care coordination for at-risk
individuals takes place.
Tablet technology implemented by several programs (and several separate vendors) has been an
additional solution for documentation. Tablets also support CCCs in delivering specific training
and educational interventions to at-risk clients.
• Evaluate performance of individual workers: The system should allow tracking of the
performance of individual CHWs, social workers, nurses, clinical providers, and others involved
in caring for at-risk clients. This information can feed into the incentive payment system
described earlier.

39
• Evaluate and report on organizational performance to stimulate quality improvement: The
HUB system should measure and report on the performance of collaborating organizations
producing positive outcomes (e.g., completed Pathways) with a given level of resources. Reports
should be accessible to the local HUB, related regional directors, and CCAs.
– The system should be designed to allow quality analysis of all delayed and unfinished
Pathways to identify any common barriers to boosting “production” of desired outcomes—
i.e., interventions, agencies, or action steps that require additional attention.
– The system should allow evaluation of each step of the process to determine where
production is being slowed or is below standards. The focus should be on finding needed
process improvements, not on punishing individuals or agencies. To that end, the Pathways
Community HUB works with partner agencies to develop standard production reports
that compare outcome production across all involved agencies. Reports show how many
Pathways are pending or completed by each staff member of each agency, thus allowing
the identification of the most productive or successful individuals and organizations. This
information assists not only in determining appropriate incentive payments, but also in
facilitating the spread of best practices and in identifying any delays or barriers that need to be
addressed by an individual, an agency, or the community at large.
• Monitor community health status: The information gathered by the Pathways Community
HUB can be very useful in helping to identify and track risk factors and related needs at the
individual level and aggregated at the community level. Working together with the health
department, health care providers, hospitals, and others in the community, the HUB can provide
valuable information on what is and is not working in the community. As a network with
many sources of wisdom, the HUB can serve to convene and help develop the best community
response to addressing necessary improvements.
Phase 3: Launching the HUB
The third and final phase of the process is to roll out the operations of the Pathways Community HUB.
This step includes hiring dedicated staff for the HUB and ensuring appropriate training of staff and
CCCs at participating agencies.
It is recommended that throughout the process of developing the local HUB, there be an understanding
and focus on the national Pathways Community HUB certification standards. The standards, in
addition to other materials and certification-focused technical support, are available through PCHCP.
CCCs must meet the national standards for basic training and supervision. The staff and CCCs must
know how to apply the Pathways and tools. There must be effective agreements and contracts between
the HUB and participating CCAs. All parties must work together to achieve community awareness and
engagement of community service providers and related collaborators.

40
Step 9: Hire HUB Staff
The appropriate timing for hiring HUB staff will vary by community. In some situations, staff will be
hired earlier to help facilitate and support many of the activities described in previous steps. In other
situations, the staff of collaborating agencies will handle these activities, allowing staffing of the HUB
to be delayed until later in the process. Partnerships with universities have enabled some HUBs to hire
graduate students in social work or public health to serve as interns.
• Toledo, Northwest Ohio Pathways HUB - Largest in the learning network with multiple grants,
Medicaid managed care, and related programs supporting 10 positions within the HUB.
• Muskegon Community Health Project - One HUB director, one HUB manager, and two clinical
supervisors.
• Oregon, NEON - One full-time equivalent (FTE) Hub Coordinator, .5 FTE operations staff,
and .5 FTE executive director.
Step 10: Train and Organize CCCs and Staff at Participating Agencies
Significant training of relevant agencies and
individuals to use the model is required to ensure
proper implementation and data collection. The
training process for the Pathways model is outlined
below:
• Develop a HUB implementation team:
Most HUBs use technical support to form
a team of trainers and support personnel
to provide the appropriate education and
technical assistance to get started. This can
occur in a train-the-trainer approach with the outside technical support team empowering the
HUB leadership or other local resources to serve in this role moving forward.
• Identify a team leader at each CCA: The implementation team should meet with the team
leader at each CCA to review current work processes. The work and documentation required for
the HUB model should be brought into the work structure in the most efficient and effective
manner possible.
• Support CCAs in identifying their CCCs: Using CCCs who are currently providing care
coordination services within the community can help implementation. It also helps HUB
implementation by supporting and strengthening current care coordination structures instead of
representing a duplicative and competitive new community structure.
– CCCs can be nurses, social workers, CHWs, or others as long as they can provide community
care coordination within the community setting.
– CHWs supervised by clinical providers, registered nurses, or licensed social workers can
provide one of the most efficient and effective ongoing deployment strategies.

41

• Rio Arriba Pathways in Española, New Mexico, advertised in the community for the positions.
They looked for individuals with a background of serving others in positions that require trust.
They have a number of cosmetologists on staff, as people frequently trust and confide in their
hairdressers. They also looked for people who speak Spanish and are from the population to be
served.
• Pathways to a Healthy Bernalillo County in Albuquerque uses CHWs (Navigators) hired and
employed by the partner community-based organizations. The HUB provides each organization
with a job description template from which to recruit their Navigators. In many cases, the
organizations had internal candidates who met most or all of the desired characteristics. The
HUB provides program orientation and ongoing coaching of the Navigators, if needed. Most of
the CHWs who have left the program took better paying positions elsewhere, often qualifying
for these positions through their experience with the Pathways Program. Many of the Navigators
continually strengthen their leadership qualities and are always willing to mentor the newer
Navigators as they develop their own leadership abilities.
• Muskegon Community Health Project in Michigan uses CHWs recruited through traditional
recruitment methods. They also seek CHWs through faith-based and local nonprofit agencies,
law enforcement, neighborhood associations, and local government. Recruitment is often
through word of mouth, with an emphasis on hiring CHWs from the community so that
neighbors are serving neighbors.
Training Requirements
• The CCA agency leadership, including the financial representatives, need to be trained on the
Pathways model and its basic requirements. The potential benefit to the individuals served as well
as the potential improvement in quality and sustainability of the CCA can be additional areas of
focus.
• The CCCs need to receive more extensive training consistent with the national Pathways
Community HUB standards. Previous training and experience is taken into consideration with
these requirements.
– If the CCC is a registered nurse or social worker, the training requirements can be
significantly less.

42
– New employees, without previous training and experience in the role of being a CCC, will
need more extensive training.
• National standards promote a training experience that can include approximately 100 contact
hours of classroom training and additional hours in on-the-job practicum experience.
– CHW curriculum requirements include understanding of the basic health, social, and
behavioral health issues that CCCs will be engaged in helping to address with their clients.
– Chart documentation, HIPAA compliance, motivational interviewing, and many other
curriculum requirements are also required through the national standards.
– For existing CHWs, previous training or certification within their State can be recognized as
an important component of their required training experience.
– The national standards for HUBs do not count as certification for CHWs. They do outline
the minimum documented curriculum requirements required for a CCC (including CHWs)
to serve in a certified HUB.
• Examples of existing State CHW training requirements that may substantially address most of
the CHW curriculum requirements include the following:
– The Ohio Board of Nursing has a curriculum for CHWs. Legislation in Ohio designated
CHW as a profession. The approved curriculum is available at
http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4723-26-13.
– The Minnesota Department of Human Services discusses CHW requirements
at http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAMIC_
CONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=dhs16_140357.
HUB Operations
HUBs need to organize, deploy a communication and regular meeting plan, and implement a quality
assurance strategy to operate the network.
• The HUB must have an initial and ongoing approach for communicating with the CCAs and
their staff. Setting up a regular meeting schedule for communication with the HUB team leaders
at each agency is an important part of this approach.
• Quality assurance by the HUB and within each CCA is part of PCHCP’s national certification
requirements. Quality assurance should be a central focus of every aspect of the HUB operation,
which includes not only the services provided but also the fiscal, human resources, and other
operational components.
• The networking of the CCCs themselves between and among the CCAs involved in the HUB is
a critical aspect of improving the overall operation. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, all the CCCs
from each of the 14 agencies involved get together on a monthly basis to discuss local challenges,
best practices, training needs, and any other important topics that can improve their overall

43
operation. It is within these sessions that strategies are shared across agencies to engage at-risk
clients, identify their risk factors, and ensure their connection to interventions. These meetings
of the CCCs have also been very informative to local, State, and national leaders who have been
invited to attend them. Other HUBs in other communities have begun to adopt this practice.
Learning more about how existing HUBs communicate within their network, reward and affirm
progress, provide specific reports and quality assurance focused information, is an important objective
for any new HUB that is developing.
Step 11: Conduct a Community Awareness Campaign
Community HUBs are required by the national standards to have a Guidance Council representative
of the community and community service structure. The individuals and their represented agencies on
the Guidance Council play a substantial role in providing community awareness of the HUB and its
development. The participation of the HUB leadership in other health, social service, and behavioral
health meetings and activities within the community is also critical in achieving community awareness.
Community members play a critical role in identifying and referring at-risk individuals to the program.
Teachers, school nurses, ministers, coaches, and others may be in the best position to know when an
individual needs help. (Within the HUB model, these individuals are known as “finders.”) Successful
programs, therefore, will conduct a formal community awareness campaign to make sure that all
important referral sources know about the program, identify who might benefit from it, and understand
how to refer at-risk individuals.
The HUB leadership is responsible for developing effective relationships and communication structure
with local service providers so that frequently identified barriers to receiving services can be addressed at
the individual and population level. The HUB leadership should work closely with other local service
providers and their CCAs to provide periodic summary reports and communications to community
policymakers and funders as part of the process. This communication can help achieve growth and
expand the positive impact. Events highlighting the success of local CCAs, their CCCs, and the direct
service providers who provide the interventions can be an important form of improving community
engagement.
Accurate and effective communication, as well as the ability to develop strong personal relationships, is
a critical skill CCCs need to work with their clients. It is also critical for supervisors and administrators
across the HUB network. Individuals within the HUB network who are accountable for getting the
work done, as well as developing positive relationships, are critical to the initiative’s ability to serve those
at risk and to achieve better outcomes at less cost.

44
Conclusion
Our Nation, with the most resources and the worst outcomes in the developed world, has a great
opportunity for improvement. The source of disparity and cost are risk factors, most of which can be
addressed. A new focus on effectively and efficiently identifying and addressing risk factors that span
health, behavioral health, and social services is demonstrating improvement in outcomes and cost.
It is a substantial challenge to change silo-based services to effective care networks. Moving from process-
based payments that incentivize service to low-risk clients to outcome-focused payments that incentivize
service to those in greatest need is essential. This national learning network developed by AHRQ is very
early in development. Your participation and innovation are needed.
Those at greatest risk can be reached and have their risk factors addressed, and they, their children, and
their families can achieve better health, social, and economic outcomes.

45
References
1. Redding S, Conrey E, Porter K, et al. Pathways community care coordination in low birth weight prevention.
Matern Child Health J 2015;19:643-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326650/. Accessed
November 4, 2015.
2. Kumar S, Ghildayal NS, Shah RN. Examining quality and efficiency of the U.S. healthcare system. Int J
Health Care Qual Assur 2011;24:366-88. PMID:21916090.
3. Kochanek M, Martin JA. Supplemental analyses of recent trends in infant mortality. Hyattsville, MD:
National Center for Health Statistics; 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/infantmort/infantmort.htm.
Accessed November 4, 2015.
4. Shortell SM. Bridging the divide between health and health care. JAMA 2013;309:1121-2. PMID:23512058.
5. McDowell I. From risk factors to explanation in public health. J Public Health 2008;30:219-23. http://
jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/3/219.long. Accessed November 4, 2015.
6. Zeigler BP, Carter EL, Redding SA, et al.. Care coordination: formalization of pathways for standardization
and certification. National Science Foundation Grant Award No. CMMI-1235364. Rockville, MD: Rockville
Institute; 2014. https://www.rockvilleinstitute.org/files/Care_Coordination_Formalization_of_Pathways_for_
Standardization_and_Certification.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2015.
7. Panovksa A, Scales B, Oxley S, et al. Medicaid braided funding policy brief. Columbus: Voices for Ohio’s
Children; 2013. http://www.raiseyourvoiceforkids.org/Media/Documents/Policy%20Briefs/MedicaidBraided_
Brief%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2015.
8. Pathways: building a community outcome production model. Mansfield, OH: Community Health Access
Project; 2001.
9. Conwell LJ, Cohen JW. Characteristics of persons with high medical expenses in the U.S. civilian
noninstitutionalized population, 2002. MEPS Statistical Brief #73. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality; March 2005. http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st73/stat73.pdf.
Accessed November 4, 2015.
10. Feinstein JS. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: a review of the literature. Milbank Q
1993;71:279-322. PMID:8510603.
11. Priority setting for healthcare performance measurement: addressing performance measure gaps in person-
centered care and outcomes. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; August 2014. http://www.
qualityforum.org/Publications/2014/08/Priority_Setting_for_Healthcare_Performance_Measurement__
Addressing_Performance_Measure_Gaps_in_Person-Centered_Care_and_Outcomes.aspx. Accessed
November 4, 2015.
12. Cantor JC, Monheit AC, DeLia D, et al. Early impact of the Affordable Care Act on health insurance
coverage of young adults. Health Serv Res 2012;47:1773-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513605/. Accessed November 4, 2015.
13. Klerman LV. Nonfinancial barriers to the receipt of medical care. The Future of Children 1992;2(2):171-85.
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/02_02_09.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2015.
14. Low birthweight in minority and high-risk women. Final Report of the Low-Birthweight Patient Outcomes
Research Team. (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1998).
http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/lobrabs.htm. Accessed November 4, 2015.

46
15. American Diabetes Association. Statistics About Diabetes.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?loc=db-slabnav. Accessed November 4, 2015.
16. Margolis KL, Piller LB, Ford CE, et al. Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart
Attack Trial Collaborative Research Group. Blood pressure control in Hispanics in the Antihypertensive and
Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Hypertension. 2007 Nov;50(5):854-61. Epub 2007
Sep 10. http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/50/5/854.long. Accessed November 4, 2015.
17. Van Dis J. Where we live: health care in rural vs. urban America. JAMA 2002;287(1):108. PMID:11754718.
18. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2007: with chartbook on trends in the health of
Americans. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2015.
19. Accounting for the Lean enterprise: major changes to the accounting paradigm. Montvale, NJ: Institute of
Management Accountants; 2006. http://www.imanet.org/docs/default-source/research/sma/accounting-for-
the-lean-enterprise.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed November 4, 2015.
20. Golnick C, Asay E, Provost E, et al. Innovative primary care delivery in rural Alaska: a review of patient
encounters seen by community health aides. Int J Circumpolar Health 2012;71:18543.
21. Karahmadi M, Shakibayee F, Amirian H, et al. Efficacy of parenting education compared to the standard
method in improvement of reading and writing disabilities in children. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci
2014;8(1):51-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078693/. Accessed November 4, 2015.
22. Li HC, Chan SS, Mak YW, et al. Effectiveness of a parental training programme in enhancing the parent-child
relationship and reducing harsh parenting practices and parental stress in preparing children for their transition
to primary school: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1079.
23. Morawska A, Tometzki H, Sanders MR. An evaluation of the efficacy of a triple P-positive parenting program
podcast series. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2014;35(2):128-37.
24. Race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status—research exploring their effects on child health: a subject review.
Pediatrics 2000;105:1349-51. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/6/1349.long. Accessed
November 4, 2015.

47
Appendix
Community HUB Template
Hub Development Work Sheet
CCA
___________________
CCA
___________________
CCA
___________________
CCA
___________________
CCA
___________________
CCA
___________________
Funders
___________________
___________________
___________________
Direct Service Agencies
Health ____________________
__________________________
__________________________
Social ____________________
__________________________
__________________________
Behavioral Health __________
__________________________
__________________________
Client/Outcome
Focus
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Community Care Coordinators (CCCs)
CHWs___________________________________
Social Worker ____________________________
Nurse ____________________________________
Care Coordination
Agencies
C
•
•
•
CC –
Reaches out to at-risk client and assesses all risk
factors with checklist
Ensures each risk factor is addressed using specific
Pathways
Risk decreases, outcomes improve, and cost goes
down
Hub
___________________

48
CommunityCareCoordinationLearningNetwork
HUBInitiativeLocationContactITStrategyOutcomeFocus
Certification
Status
CommunityHealth
AccessProject-CHAP
Mansfield,OhioMichelleMoritz,SarahRedding,Bob
Harnach
RichlandCountyEarlyChildhoodCenter
Mansfield,OH44902
419-525-2555
sredding@att.net
Web-basedtablet
platform
Maternaland
childhealth;now
expandingtoserve
allages
Inprogress
NorthwestOhio
PathwaysHUB
Toledo,OhioJanRuma,CarlyMiller
HospitalCouncilofNorthwestOhio
3231CentralParkWestDrive,
Suite200
Toledo,OH43617
419-842-0800
jruma@hcno.org
cmiller@hcno.org
Web-basedtablet
technology
Originalfocus
onmaternaland
childhealth;now
focusingonallage
groups
Provisional
certification
awarded
October
2014;final
certification
pending
HealthCareAccess
Now(HCAN)
Cincinnati,OhioJudithWarren
7162ReadingRoad,Suite1120
Cincinnati,OH45237
513-107-5696
jwarren@healthcareaccessnow.org
Web-basedtablet
technology
Servingallage
groups
Inprogress
MuskegonCommunity
HealthProject
Muskegon,
Michigan
JudyKell,PeterSartorius
MuskegonCommunityHealthProject/
MercyHealthPartners
565W.WesternAvenue
Muskegon,MI49440
231-672-3201
satorip@mchp.org
Web-basedtablet
technology
AllagegroupsInprogress
RioArribaPathwaysEspañola,New
Mexico
LaurenReichelt
1122IndustrialParkRoad
Española,NM87532
505-753-3143
lmreichelt@rio-arriba.org
Combination
ofpaperand
electronicsystem
PregnancyInprogress

49
HUBInitiativeLocationContactITStrategyOutcomeFocus
Certification
Status
PathwaystoaHealthy
BernalilloCounty
Albuquerque,
NewMexico
DarylT.Smith
OfficeofCommunityHealthWorker
Initiatives
UniversityofNewMexicoHealth
ScienceCenter,MSC074350
Albuquerque,NM87131
505-272-0823
dtsmith@salud.unm.edu
Web-based
custom-designed
system
Low-toverylow-
incomeadultswith
multiplecomplex
needs
Provisional
certification
awarded
October
2014;final
certification
pending
St.VincentHealthIndianapolis,
Indiana
SherryGray
St.VincentHealth
NorthOfficeBuilding
10330N.MeridianStreet,Suite415
Indianapolis,IN46290
317-583-3213
SEGray@stvincent.org
NortheastOregon
Network(NEON)
LisaLandendorf,ExecutiveDirector
EricGriffith,HubCoordinator
NorthEastOregonNetwork
913MainAvenue
LaGrand,OR97850
lladendorff@neonoregon.org
egriffith@neonoregon.org
Adultswithchronic
disease
Inprogress
SaginawPathwaysto
BetterHealth
Saginaw,
Michigan,and
adjacentcounties
SandraLindsey,ProjectDirector
slindsey@sccmha.org
BarbGlassheim,ProjectManager
barbglassheim@comcast.net
VurliaWheeler,HUBManager
vwheeler@sccmha.org
Web-basedtablet
technology
Adultswithchronic
disease
Maternalandchild
health
Provisional
certification
awarded
October
2014;final
certification
pending
SaginawCountyCommunityMental
HealthAuthority
500Hancock
Saginaw,MI48602

50
Certification
HUBInitiativeLocationContactITStrategyOutcomeFocusStatus
InghamPathwaystoIngham,Eaton,3425BelleChaseWayWeb-basedAdultswithchronicInprogress
BetterHealthClinton,Gratiot,Suite1technologydisease
andMontcalmLansingMI48911
Countiesinlnoyer@ihpmi.org
Michigan
FranklinCountyFranklinCounty,ToddDieffenderfer,ChiefAlignmentTablettechnologySchoolreadinessExpect
PathwaysCommunityOhioOfficeramongearlytobegin
HUBTodd.Dieffenderfer@uwcentralohio.orgchildhoodcertification
DavidCiccone
AVP,CommunityImpact
Senior.ImpactDirector,Health
david.ciccone@uwcentralohio.org
UnitedWayofCentralOhio
360SThirdStreet
population,healthy
birthoutcomes
amonghigh-risk
pregnantwomen,
workforceoutcomes
amongyoungadults
processin
2016after
fullHUB
implementation
Columbus,Ohio43215

51
Primary Resources for Current Evidence
Note: Includes peer-reviewed publications and data analysis
1. Redding S, Conrey E, Porter K, et al. Pathways Community Care Coordination in Low Birth
Weight Prevention. J Matern Child Health 2015;19(3):643-50. First online: 20 August 2014.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10995-014-1554-4. Demonstrated a 60 percent reduction
in low birth weight and a more than 500 percent return on investment. This publication was
accomplished with the Community Health Access Project and was conducted in collaboration with
the Ohio Department of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and The Ohio
State University.
2. Zeigler BP, Carter E, Redding S, et al. Care Coordination: Formalization of Pathways for
Standardization and Certification. National Science Foundation Grant Award No. CMMI-
1235364. https://www.rockvilleinstitute.org/files/Care_Coordination_Formalization_of_Pathways_
for_Standardization_and_Certification.pdf. Demonstrated the critical effectiveness of pay-for-
performance accountability within the model.
3. Alley DE, Asomugha CN, Conway PH, et al. Accountable health communities: addressing social
needs through Medicare and Medicaid. N Engl J Med 2016 Jan 7;374(1):8-11. PMID:26731305.
4. Zeigler B, Redding S, Leath B, et al. Guiding principles for data architecture to support the
Pathways Community HUB Model. eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient
outcomes) 2016;4(1):Art. 1.
Low Birth Weight Rates in Ohio and Richland County, 2005-2008
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
OhioRichland County
2005 2006 2007 2008
PercentgeofLBWBirths

52
5. Countywide statistics during first Community HUB implementation from the Ohio Public Health
Data Warehouse. http://publicapps.odh.ohio.gov/EDW/DataCatalog. See data below.
6. Countywide statistics during period of specific focus on African American expectant mothers
in Richland County. During the same period of analysis, overall State infant mortality was
demonstrated to be increasing. Data represented are from the Ohio Public Health Data Warehouse.
http://publicapps.odh.ohio.gov/EDW/DataCatalog. See data below.
7. Toledo, Ohio, Northwest Pathways HUB data following implementation of the Pathways
Community HUB model. See data below.
Richland County Infant Mortality Rate, 2007-2009 and 2010-2012, 3-Year Trend Data
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
OhioRichland County
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percentge
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
BlackWhiteRichland County
2007-2009 2010-2012
Rateper1,000LiveBirths
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Infant Deaths, Total 15 6 14 15 14 6
White Deaths 11 6 12 13 13 5
Black Deaths 4 0 2 2 1 1
Births, Total 1,606 1,523 1,517 1,339 1,353 1,410
White Births 1,436 1,365 1,353 1,199 1,220 1,260
Black Births 170 158 164 140 133 150

53
Lucas County African American Low Birth Weight Rates
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Pathways
2014
Pathways
2013
Lucas County
2013
Ohio
2013
13.4 13.2
9.5 9.5
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
201420132012
79%
74%
80%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Pathways
2014
Pathways
2013
Lucas County
2013
Ohio
2013
13.4 13.2
9.5 9.5
Percentage of NW Ohio Pathways Clients Attending Postpartum Appointment,
2012-2014
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
201420132012
79%
74%
80%
In 2013, 63% of women on Medicaid attended postpartum appointment within 90 days.

54
8. The Muskegon Community Health Project established a Pregnancy Pathways program for high-
risk mothers in Muskegon and Oceana Counties, with grants from the March of Dimes Michigan
Chapter and the CHE-Trinity Call-to-Care Fund. A return-on-investment analysis was prepared
by Greg Cline, Ph.D., for the initial 21-month period ending May 2014. For the 62 participants
for whom he had complete claims data, Dr. Cline reported that the program cost per participant
was $1,567.52 for the Pathways to Healthy Pregnancy Program. Dr. Cline calculated that avoided
costs for prevented low birth weight newborn babies was $6,127.57 per participant. There
was only one low birth weight baby in the cohort. The Pregnancy Pathways Program enrolled
mothers from the highest risk group in Muskegon County and made their outcomes better than
the Medicaid population and equal with that of the general population. This program is being
continued with the use of Community Benefit funds.
9. Financing Community Health Workers: Why and How: The Future Is Now in Many
Communities. Lansing, MI: Public Sector Consultants; January 2007. Produced with funding
from the National Community Voices Initiative, Center for Primary Care, Morehouse School of
Medicine, through the Columbia University Center for Community Health Partnerships. http://
pscinc.com/Publications/tabid/65/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/20/Financing-Community-
Health-Workers-Why-How-Policy-Brief.aspx
10. Panovska A, Scales B, Oxley S, et al. Medicaid Braided Funding Policy Brief. Columbus: Voices
for Ohio’s Children; November 2013. http://www.raiseyourvoiceforkids.org/Media/Documents/
Policy%20Briefs/MedicaidBraided_Brief%20FINAL.pdf
11. Priority Setting for Healthcare Performance Measurement: Addressing Performance Measure Gaps
in Care Coordination. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; August 2014.
https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2014/08/Priority_Setting_for_Healthcare_
Performance_Measurement__Addressing_Performance_Measure_Gaps_in_Care_Coordination.
aspx
12. “Case Studies” of Organizations Implementing Pathways
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Innovations Exchange includes 10 “profiles” (similar
to case studies) of organizations that have successfully implemented Pathways. Each write-up includes
a capsule summary of the program, a description of the problem addressed, a descriptive summary of
key program elements and the results achieved to date, background on the context and impetus for the
program, a review of key planning and development steps, and a discussion of considerations for would-
be adopters, including lessons related to getting started and sustaining the program. Web addresses for
these profiles are provided below:
• Community Health Navigators Use Pathways Model to Enhance Access to Health and Social
Services for Low-Income, At-Risk Residents: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/community-
health-navigators-use-pathways-model-enhance-access-health-and-social-services
• Field-Based Outreach Workers Facilitate Access to Health Care and Social Services for
Underserved Individuals in Rural Areas: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/field-based-
outreach-workers-facilitate-access-health-care-and-social-services-underserved
• Program Uses “Pathways” to Confirm Those At-Risk Connect to Community Based Health and
Social Services, Leading to Improved Outcomes: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/program-
uses-pathways-confirm-those-risk-connect-community-based-health-and-social-services

55
• Michigan Pathways Project Links Ex-Prisoners to Medical Services, Contributing to a Decline in
Recidivism: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/michigan-pathways-project-links-ex-prisoners-
medical-services-contributing-decline
• County-Wide Collaborative Uses Pathways Model to Enhance Access to Insurance, Primary
Care, and Mental Health Services for Low-Income Children:
https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/county-wide-collaborative-uses-pathways-model-enhance-
access-insurance-primary-care-and
• Pathway Helps Massachusetts Residents Develop and Implement Debt-Reduction Strategies,
Leading to 60-Percent Reduction in Medical Debt: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/
pathway-helps-massachusetts-residents-develop-and-implement-debt-reduction-strategies
• Community Health Collaborative Reduces Inappropriate Emergency Department Use by
Providing Access to Health Care, Social Support for Low-Income Clients:
https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/community-health-collaborative-reduces-inappropriate-
emergency-department-use-providing
• Volunteer Provider Network Cares for Uninsured Working Poor, Leading to Lower
Utilization and Costs, Better Outcomes, and Positive Return on Investment:
https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/volunteer-provider-network-cares-uninsured-working-
poor-leading-lower-utilization-and-costs
• Hospital Partnership Offers Pathways-Based Case Management Program, Leading to Enhanced
Access to Appropriate Care for Uninsured: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/hospital-
partnership-offers-pathways-based-case-management-program-leading-enhanced-access
• Community Health Worker Agencies Partner With Emergency Medical Service Providers To
Identify Frequent Callers and Connect Them to Community-Based Services, Leading to Fewer
911 Calls: https://innovations.ahrq.gov/profiles/community-health-worker-agencies-partner-
emergency-medical-service-providers-identify

56
Sample Pathways Forms*
Pathways
Initial Client Enrollment Form
(Please print clearly)
Agency Name: __________________________________________________________________
Community Health Worker: _______________________________________________________
Date of Enrollment: ______________________________________________________________
Where Client Was Found: _________________________________________________________
Client Information
Full Name: _____________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
(include street, city, and ZIP code)
Date of Birth: ___________________ / ____________ /____________
(Month) (Day) (Year)
Race (Check all that apply):
American Indian/Alaska Native Asian African American/Black
Pacific Islander Caucasian/White Other ______________________
Ethnicity: Hispanic Non-Hispanic
Risk Factors (see next page for codes):
A B C D E F G H I J K L
M N O P Q R S T U
Due Date: ______________________ / ____________ /____________
(Month) (Day) (Year)
Buckeye Paramount United Healthcare Grant Funded
Please fax enrollment form to Pathways Administrator at 419-842-0999.
*Up-to-date and more extensive resources and contact information for technical support are available at the PCHCP Web page
at https://pchcp.rockvilleinstitute.org/.

57
Risk Factor Codes for Pathways Client Enrollment
A. African American
B. Drug use
C. Tobacco use
D. No insurance
E. Women with previous birth in last 18 months
F. Late entry into prenatal care (after 13 weeks)
G. No transportation
H. Unaware of the pregnancy
I. Domestic violence
J. Poor living environment
K. Poor health of the mother
L. Noncompliance with medical appointment
M. Personal problems
N. Unwanted pregnancy
O. Mental illness
P. Homeless
Q. Less than 18 years old
R. Unmarried
S. Low income
T. Prior poor birth outcomes
U. Residing in a ZIP Code with a history of a high percentage of low birth weight (43604, 43605,
43606, 43607, 43608, 43610, 43615, 43620)

58
Sample Checklists
The following are examples of initial checklists that include “trigger questions”—i.e., questions where a
“yes” answer indicates that a Pathway should be assigned to the client. The checklist, which is completed
with the enrollment form, is critical, since many clients will not volunteer important information (e.g.,
about spousal abuse, losing health insurance coverage) unless specifically asked.
CHW Pregnancy Checklist
Yes No General Health Q#
I would like to start off by asking if you have any questions or concerns that
you would like to tell me about.
Do you need health insurance for yourself? If yes, determine Healthy Start/
HF eligibility. 1-Client eligible (Initiate Healthy Start/HF Pathway), 2-Client
not eligible.
Do you need prenatal care? Consider Referral Pathway.
Do you need a primary care doctor? If yes, which services do you usually
use? 1-ER, 2-Urgent care, 3-Walk-in clinic. Consider Medical Referral
Pathway.
Yes No Home and Transportation Q#
Do you need help with transportation to health and social service
appointments? If yes, how do you get to appointments now? 1-Bus, 2-Own
car, 3-Relative’s car, 4-Other.
Do you have problems with providing: 1-Housing (1A - About to be evicted,
1B - Homeless), 2-Food, 3-Clothing, 4-Utilities. Consider Referral Pathway(s).
Yes No Nutrition, Safety, and Habits Q#
Do you plan to breastfeed?
Are you currently taking prenatal vitamins?
Do you smoke cigarettes? 1-Less than half pack per day, 2-Half to whole
pack per day, 3-One-two packs per day, 4-More than two packs per day,
5-Interested in decreasing or quitting. Consider Smoking Cessation Pathway.
Please indicate any level of reduction in smoking during pregnancy.
Yes No Employment, Training, Financial Support Q#
Are you looking for a job? 1-Need help finding a job, 2-Need help with
resume, 3-Need training before getting job, 4-Felony record.
Are you currently sanctioned? 1-By DJFS, 2-The courts.
Do you have enough money each month to pay all of your bills? Consider
Money Management Pathway.
Q# = Qualifier number for question.

59
Yes No Emotional Health and Support Q#
Do you feel like you are under stress?
Yes No Current Medical Issues Q#
Are you currently being treated for any of the following conditions?
1-Infections, 2-Asthma, 3-Chronic Medical Conditions, 4-Mental Health
Problems. Write in type of illness and details.
Are you taking any medicines? 1-Prescribed by a doctor, 2-Over-the- counter
medications, 3-Herbal or alternative medicines? List all medications currently
taking.
Yes No Current Pregnancy Q#
Have you been told by a health care provider that you were in preterm labor
during this pregnancy? 1-On medication, 2-On bed rest, 3-Hospitalized.
Have you had any infections during this pregnancy? 1-Bladder, 2-Kidney,
3-Sexually transmitted disease, 4-Vaginal, 5-Respiratory, 6-Other (document
in chart).
Did your health care provider tell you that you have any medical problems
with this pregnancy? 1-Diabetes/gestational diabetes, 2-More than one
baby, 3-High blood pressure/preeclampsia, 4-Anemia, 5-Inadequate weight
gain, 6-Problems with the placenta, 7-Leaking amniotic fluid, 8-Rh negative
blood type, 9-Other.
Yes No Signs of Illness Q#
Have you had any: 1-Contractions, tightening, or pain in the abdomen,
2-Back/flank pain, 3-Spotting/bleeding, 4-Swelling of hand or face (NOT
ankles), 5-Severe headaches, 6-blurred vision. Immediate notification of
supervisor for any Yes answers.
Have you had any: 1-Breathing problems, 2-Pain with urination, 3-Fever or
chills, 4-Vaginal discharge, 5-Vomiting, 6-Diarrhea, 7-Excessive tiredness,
8-Other. Immediate notification of supervisor for any Yes
answers.

60
CHW Postpartum Checklist
Do you need health insurance for yourself? If yes, determine Healthy Start/
not eligible.
Do you need a primary care doctor? If yes, which services do you usually
use? 1-ER, 2-Urgent care, 3-Walk-in clinic. Consider Medical Referral
Pathway.
Are you breastfeeding? 1-Breastfeeding only, 2-Supplementing with formula,
3-Having difficulty with breastfeeding, 4-Breastfeeding going well.
Do you need help childproofing your home?
Are you taking vitamins?

61
1-Infections, 2-Asthma, 3-Chronic Medical Conditions, 4-Mental Health
Problems. Write in type of illness and details.
Are you taking any medicines? 1-Prescribed by a doctor, 2-Over-the-counter
taking.
Yes No Reproductive Health Q#
Are you sexually active now? 1-One partner, 2-Multiple sex partners.
Are you currently using a family planning method? 1-Abstinence, 2-Natural
FP, 3-Condoms, 4-Diaphragm, 5-Shot, 6-Pill, 7-IUD, 8-Sterilization, 9-Other.
Are you having problems making it to your 6-week checkup? 1-If yes, initiate
Referral Pathway.
Have you had any: 1-Breathing problems, 2-Pain with urination, 3-Fever or
chills, 4-Vaginal discharge, 5-Vomiting, 6-Diarrhea, 7-Excessive tiredness,
8-Abdominal pain, 9-Depression, 10-Bleeding longer than 4 weeks?
Immediate notification of supervisor for any Yes answers.

62
CHW Pediatric, Birth-1 Year
you would like to tell me about your baby.
Do you need a primary care doctor for your baby? If yes, which services
do you most commonly use? 1-ER, 2-Urgent care, 3-Walk-in clinic. Consider
Medical Referral Pathway.
Do you need health insurance for your child? If yes, determine Healthy Start/
not eligible.
Do you need help with transportation for child to health and social service
Do you have problems with providing any of the following for your child:
1-Housing (1A - About to be evicted, 1B - Homeless), 2-Food, 3-Clothing,
4-Utilities, 5-Furniture, 6-Car Seat, 7-Crib. Consider Referral Pathway(s).
Is your baby having any problems with feeding? If yes, document in chart.
Is your baby breastfeeding?
Do you need a working smoke detector? If yes, 1-smoke detector provided
and education given.
Does baby sleep on his/her stomach? If yes, give detailed information about
importance of putting baby on his/her back to sleep.
Do you need child care?
Did you go over age-appropriate safety information?
Yes No Development Q#
Did you discuss brain development and the importance of talking to, reading
to, holding, and interacting with the baby?
Did you discuss the importance of strengths-based parenting (encouraging
your child)?
Has your baby been diagnosed with any developmental delays or problems?
If yes, 1-screen completed and normal, 2-screen completed and abnormal.
Consider Developmental Referral Pathway.

63
Yes No Disease Prevention Q#
Does anyone in your home smoke? 1-Client, 2-Partner/Spouse, 3-Other.
Initiate Smoking Cessation Pathway and discuss effects of secondhand
smoke.
Is your baby missing any immunizations? Consider Immunization Pathway.
Are you giving your baby any medicines? 1-Prescribed by a doctor, 2-Over-
the-counter medications, 3-Herbal or alternative medicines, 4-Prescribed by a
doctor but cannot afford.
Is your baby currently being treated for: 1-Infections, 2-Asthma, 3-Chronic
Medical Conditions. Write in type of illness and details.
Is your baby having: 1-Difficulty breathing, 2-Vomiting, 3-Diarrhea, 4-Feeding
problems, 5-Fever or chills, 6-Jerking of arms or legs, 7-Change in skin color
(blue lips, yellow skin), 8-Other. Consider Sick Child Pathway. Immediate
notification of supervisor for any Yes answers.

64
CHW Adult Male
Do you need a primary care doctor? If yes, which services do you most
commonly use? 1-ER, 2-Urgent care, 3-Walk-in clinic. Consider Medical
Referral Pathway.
Do you need health insurance? If yes, determine Healthy Start/Healthy
Family eligibility. 1-Client eligible (Initiate Healthy Start/HF Pathway),
2-Client not eligible.
Yes No Current Medical History Q#
1-Infections, 2-Asthma, 3-High Blood Pressure, 4-Other Chronic Medical
Conditions, 5-Mental Health Problems. Write in type of illness and details.
Are you taking any medicines? 1-Prescribed by a doctor, 2-Over-the- counter
taking.
Yes No Reproductive Health Q#
Are you sexually active now? 1-One partner, 2-Multiple sex partners.
Are you currently using a family planning method? 1-Abstinence, 2-Natural
FP, 3-Condoms, 4-Diaphragm, 5-Shot, 6-Pill, 7-IUD, 8-Sterilization, 9-Other.

65
Glossary of Abbreviations Used in This Report
CCA - Care coordination agency
CCC - Community care coordinator
CCCLN - Community Care Coordination Learning Network
CHAP - Community Health Access Project (Mansfield, OH)
CHIP - Community Health Improvement Plan (Saginaw, MI)
CHW - Community health worker
CMS - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
ED - Emergency department
FTE - Full-time equivalent
HCAN - Health Care Access Now (Cincinnati, OH)
HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration
LBW - Low birth weight
MAPP - Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships (Saginaw, MI)
MCHP - Muskegon Community Health Project (Muskegon, MI)
NEON - Northeast Oregon Network
PCHCP- Pathways Community HUB Certification Program
QI - Quality improvement
RUAH - Rural and Urban Access to Health (Indianapolis, IN)
RVU - Relative value unit
SIM - State innovation model

66
Other Resources
• Pathways: Building a Community Outcome Production Model. Mansfield, OH: Community
Health Access Project; 2010.
• 20 Predictors of a Successful Project. In Virginia Health Care Foundation Grant Guidelines, pp.
14-15. http://www.vhcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Grant-Guidelines-12_2_12.pdf
• Torres GW, Margolin FS. The Collaboration Primer: Proven Strategies, Considerations, and
Tools to Get You Started. Health Research and Educational Trust, Chicago, Illinois. This guide
provides practical advice on how to get started on a collaborative project; it includes a checklist
of key areas required for effective collaboration, along with a detailed list of questions within each
area to gauge a community’s readiness to work together.
http://www.hret.org/upload/resources/collaboration-primer.pdf
• Oregon Health Policy Commission. Community-Created Health Care Solutions
in Oregon. Prepared by the Local Delivery Systems Model Workgroup and Marian
Blankenship. This report reviews the efforts of various communities within Oregon to
develop programs to serve at-risk populations and includes a discussion of common
lessons learned across sites. http://www.oregon.gov/oha/OHPR/HPC/docs/2006/
surveyofcommunitycreatedhealthcaresolutionsinoregon06.pdf
• Dees JG. The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship.” Funded by the Kauffman
Foundation. Available at: https://entrepreneurship.duke.edu/news-item/the-meaning-of-
social-entrepreneurship/

AHRQ Publication No. 15(16)-0070-EF
January 2016

Pathways Community HUB Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Pathways Community HUB Manual (20)

More from AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange (7)

Recently uploaded (20)

Pathways Community HUB Manual