Dataset Information

Bending the cost curve? Results from a comprehensive primary care payment pilot.

ABSTRACT: There is much interest in understanding how using bundled primary care payments to support a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) affects total medical costs.We compare 2008-2010 claims and eligibility records on about 10,000 patients in practices transforming to a PCMH and receiving risk-adjusted base payments and bonuses, with similar data on approximately 200,000 patients of nontransformed practices remaining under fee-for-service reimbursement.We estimate the treatment effect using difference-in-differences, controlling for trend, payer type, plan type, and fixed effects. We weight to account for partial-year eligibility, use propensity weights to address differences in exogenous variables between control and treatment patients, and use the Massachusetts Health Quality Project algorithm to assign patients to practices.Estimated treatment effects are sensitive to: control variables, propensity weighting, the algorithm used to assign patients to practices, how we address differences in health risk, and whether/how we use data from enrollees who join, leave, or change practices. Unadjusted PCMH spending reductions are 1.5% in year 1 and 1.8% in year 2. With fixed patient assignment and other adjustments, medical spending in the treatment group seems to be 5.8% (P=0.20) lower in year 1 and 8.7% (P=0.14) lower in year 2 than for propensity-weighted, continuously enrolled controls; the largest proportional 2-year reduction in spending occurs in laboratory test use (16.5%, P=0.02).Although estimates are imprecise because of limited data and quasi-experimental design, risk-adjusted bundled payment for primary care may have dampened spending growth in 3 practices implementing a PCMH.

SUBMITTER: Vats S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3845668 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bending the cost curve? Results from a comprehensive primary care payment pilot.

Vats Sonal S Ash Arlene S AS Ellis Randall P RP

Medical care 20131101 11

<h4>Background</h4>There is much interest in understanding how using bundled primary care payments to support a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) affects total medical costs.<h4>Research design and subjects</h4>We compare 2008-2010 claims and eligibility records on about 10,000 patients in practices transforming to a PCMH and receiving risk-adjusted base payments and bonuses, with similar data on approximately 200,000 patients of nontransformed practices remaining under fee-for-service reimbu ...[more]

PMID: 24113816

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Primary care is increasingly delivered at or near workplaces, yet utilization and cost of employer-sponsored primary care services remain unknown. Objective:To compare the health care utilization and cost of an employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, and virtual comprehensive primary care service delivery model with those of traditional community-based primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants:This population-based cohort study of 23 518 commercially insured employees and dependents of an engineering and manufacturing firm headquartered in southern California was performed from January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2019. A subset of the population with most (≥50%) primary care visits through employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, or virtual care clinics was matched to a subset not having most such visits through the employer-sponsored clinics using propensity score matching (n = 1983 each). In sensitivity analyses, employees were matched to dependents at neighboring firms that lacked access to the employer-sponsored primary care delivery model (additional n = 1680). Exposures:Integrated primary care, mental health, and physical therapy delivered through on-site, near-site, and virtual clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures:Utilization (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, pharmaceutical, radiology, and laboratory visits per 1000 member-months) and spending (2019 costs per member per month in US dollars) by service type. Results:A total of 23 518 individuals (mean [SD] age, 27 [15] years; 14 604 [62.1%] male) were included in the full population sample and had been enrolled in the employer-sponsored health plan for a mean of 29 months (interquartile range, 14-48 months). Of eligible members, 5292 (22.5%) used the employer-sponsored services, with 2305 (9.8%) using them for most of their primary care. The mean (SD) cost of employer-sponsored service delivery was $87 ($32) per member month. Among the matched populations (mean [SD] age, 31 [11] years; 3349 [84.5%] male) of primary users vs control individuals, total spending was 45% lower per member per month (95% CI, 35%-55%; cost difference, -$167 per member per month; 95% CI, -$204 to -$130; P < .001) among users after adjustment. The lower spending was associated with lower spending on non-primary care services, such as emergency department (-33%; 95% CI, -44% to -22%) and hospital visits (-16%; 95% CI, -22% to -10%), despite higher spending on primary care (109%; 95% CI, 102%-116%) and mental health (20%; 95% CI, 13%-27%). Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that individuals who used the models' services for most of their primary care had lower total spending despite higher primary care spending, which may be associated with self-selection of lower-risk persons to the employer-sponsored services and/or with the use of comprehensive primary care.

Project description:AimThis work aimed to evaluate a pre/post-reform pilot study from 2015 to 2018 in a rural county of Zhejiang Province, China to realign the provider payment system for primary health care (PHC).MethodsData were extracted from the National Health Financial Annual Reports for the 21 township health centers (THCs) in Shengzhou County. An information system was designed for the reform. Differences among independent groups were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis H-test. Dunn's post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. Differences between paired groups were tested by Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Two-tailed P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Data were processed and analyzed using R 3.6.1 for Windows.FindingsFirst, payments to THCs shifted from a "soft budget" to a mixed system of line-item input-based and categorized output-based payments, accounting for 17.54% and 82.46%, respectively, of total revenue in 2017. Second, providers were more motivated to deliver services after the reform; total volumes increased by 27.80%, 19.22%, and 30.31% for inpatient visits, outpatient visits, and the National Essential Public Health Services Package (NEPHSP), respectively. Third, NEPHSP payments were shifted from capitation to resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS) payments, resulting in a change in the NEPHSP subsidy from 36.41 to 67.35 per capita among the 21 THCs in 2017. Fourth, incentive merit pay to primary health physicians accounted for 38.40% of total salary, and the average salary increased by 32.74%, with a 32.45% increase in working intensity. A small proportion of penalties for unqualified products and pay-for-performance rewards were blended with the payments. The reform should be modified to motivate providers in remote areas.ConclusionIn the context of a profit-driven, hospital-centered system, add-on payments - including categorized output-based payments to THCs and incentive merit pay to primary care physicians (PCPs) - are probably worth pursuing to achieve more active and output/outcome-based PHC in China.

Project description:BackgroundAccountable care organizations (ACOs) seek to reduce growth in healthcare spending while ensuring high-quality care. We hypothesized that accountable care organization implementation would selectively limit the use of discretionary cardiovascular care (defined as care occurring in the absence of indications such as myocardial infarction or stroke), while maintaining high-quality care, such as nondiscretionary cardiovascular imaging and procedures.Methods and resultsThe intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare patients (n=819 779) from 10 groups participating in a Medicare pilot accountable care organization, the Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD). Matched controls were patients (n=934 621) from nonparticipating groups in the same regions. We compared use of cardiovascular care before (2002-2004) and after (2005-2009) PGPD implementation, studying both discretionary and nondiscretionary carotid and coronary imaging and procedures. Our main outcome measure was the difference in the proportion of patients treated with imaging and procedures among patients of PGPD practices compared with patients in control practices, before and after PGPD implementation (difference-in-difference). For discretionary imaging, the difference-in-difference between PGPD practices and controls was not statistically significant for discretionary carotid imaging (0.17%; 95% confidence interval, -0.51% to 0.85%; P=0.595) or discretionary coronary imaging (-0.19%; 95% confidence interval, -0.73% to 0.35%; P=0.468). Similarly, the difference-in-difference was also minimal for discretionary carotid revascularization (0.003%; 95% confidence interval, -0.008% to 0.002%; P=0.705) and coronary revascularization (-0.02%; 95% confidence interval, -0.11% to 0.07%; P=0.06). The difference-in-difference associated with PGPD implementation was also essentially 0 for nondiscretionary cardiovascular imaging or procedures.ConclusionImplementation of a pilot accountable care organization did not limit the use of discretionary or nondiscretionary cardiovascular care in 10 large health systems.

Dataset Information

Bending the cost curve? Results from a comprehensive primary care payment pilot.

Publications

Bending the cost curve? Results from a comprehensive primary care payment pilot.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets