Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Singh P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7358014 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative.
Singh Pragya P Orzol Sean S Peikes Deborah D Oh Eunhae G EG Dale Stacy S
Annals of family medicine 20200701 4
<h4>Purpose</h4>Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) is the largest test of primary care payment and delivery reform. This program aims to strengthen primary care via enhanced and alternative payment, data feedback, learning, and health information technology support for practice transformation for more than 3,000 practices. We analyzed participation rates and how CPC+ practices differ from other primary care practices in CPC+ regions.<h4>Methods</h4>We assembled a unique data set describing a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIt remains unclear whether the racial-ethnic composition or the socioeconomic profiles of eligible primary care practices better explain practice participation in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program.ObjectiveTo examine whether practices serving high proportions of Black or Latino Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021 compared to practices serving lower proportions of these populations.Design2019 IQVIA OneKey data on practice characteristics was linked with 2018 CMS claims data and 2021 CMS CPC+ participation data. Medicare FFS beneficiaries were attributed to practices using CMS's primary care attribution method.Participants11,718 primary care practices and 7,264,812 attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries across 18 eligible regions.MethodsMultivariable logistic regression models examined whether eligible practices with relatively high shares of Black or Latino Medicare FFS beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021, controlling for the clinical and socioeconomic profiles of practices.Main measuresProportion of Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to each practice that are (1) Latino and (2) Black.Key resultsOf the eligible practices, 26.9% were CPC+ participants. In adjusted analyses, practices with relatively high shares of Black (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 0.62, p < 0.05) and Latino (aOR = 0.32, p < 0.01) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ compared to practices with lower shares of these beneficiary groups. State differences in CPC+ participation rates partially explained participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Black beneficiaries, but did not explain participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Latino beneficiaries.ConclusionsThe racial-ethnic composition of eligible primary care practices is more strongly associated with CPC+ participation than census tract-level poverty. Practice eligibility requirements for CMS-sponsored initiatives should be reconsidered so that Black and Latino beneficiaries are not left out of the benefits of practice transformation.
| S-EPMC10593678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the association between a large-scale, multi-payer primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative-on outpatient emergency department (ED) and urgent care center (UCC) use and to identify the types of visits that drive the overall trends observed.Data sourcesMedicare claims data capturing characteristics and outcomes of 565 674 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries attributed to 497 CPC practices and 1 165 284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices.Study designWe used an adjusted difference-in-differences framework to test the association between CPC and beneficiaries' ED and UCC use from October 2012 through December 2016. Regression models controlled for baseline practice and patient characteristics and practice-level clustering of standard errors. Our key outcomes were all-cause and primary care substitutable (PC substitutable) outpatient ED and UCC visits, and potentially primary care preventable (PPC preventable) ED visits, categorized by the New York University Emergency Department Algorithm. We used a propensity score-matched comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC practices before CPC on multiple dimensions. Both groups of practices had similar growth in ED and UCC visits in the two-year period before CPC.Principal findingsComprehensive Primary Care practices had 2% (P = .06) lower growth in all-cause ED visits than comparison practices. They had 3% (P = .02) lower growth in PC substitutable ED visits, driven by lower growth in weekday PC substitutable visits (4%, P = .002). There was 3% (P = .04) lower growth in PPC preventable ED visits with no weekday/nonweekday differential. As expected, our falsification test showed no difference in ED visits for injuries. UCC visits had 9% lower growth for both all-cause (P = .08) and PC substitutable visits (P = .07).ConclusionsOur results suggest that greater access to the practice and more effective primary care both contributed to the lower growth in ED and UCC visits during the initiative.
| S-EPMC7704466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe the modified Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment (M-PCMH-A) survey module developed to track primary care practices' care delivery approaches over time, assess whether its underlying factor structure is reliable, and produce factor scores that provide a more reliable summary measure of the practice's care delivery than would a simple average of question responses. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Survey data collected from diverse practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative in 2012 (n = 497) and 2014 (n = 493) and matched comparison practices in 2014 (n = 423). STUDY DESIGN:Confirmatory factor analysis. DATA COLLECTION:Thirty-eight questions organized in six domains: Access and Continuity of Care, Planned Care for Chronic Conditions and Preventive Care, Risk-Stratified Care Management, Patient and Caregiver Engagement, Coordination of Care across the Medical Neighborhood, and Continuous Data-Driven Improvement. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Confirmatory factor analysis suggested using seven factors (splitting one domain into two), reassigning two questions to different domain factors, and removing one question, resulting in high reliability, construct validity, and stability in all but one factor. The seven factors together formed a single higher-order factor summary measure. Factor scores guard against potential biases from equal weighting. CONCLUSIONS:The M-PCMH-A can validly and reliably track primary care delivery across practices and over time using factors representing seven key components of care as well as an overall score. Researchers should calculate factor loadings for their specific data if possible, but average scores may be suitable if they cannot use factor analysis due to resource or sample constraints.
| S-EPMC5867087 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIncorporating behavioral health care into patient centered medical homes is critical for improving patient health and care quality while reducing costs. Despite documented effectiveness of behavioral health integration (BHI) in primary care settings, implementation is limited outside of large health systems. We conducted a survey of BHI in primary care practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative, a four-year multi-payer initiative of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We sought to explore associations between practice characteristics and the extent of BHI to illuminate possible factors influencing successful implementation.MethodWe fielded a survey that addressed six substantive domains (integrated space, training, access, communication and coordination, treatment planning, and available resources) and five behavioral health conditions (depression, anxiety, pain, alcohol use disorder, and cognitive function). Descriptive statistics compared BHI survey respondents to all CPC practices, documented the availability of behavioral health providers, and primary care and behavioral health provider communication. Bivariate relationships compared provider and practice characteristics and domain scores.ResultsOne hundred sixty-one of 188 eligible primary care practices completed the survey (86% response rate). Scores indicated basic to good baseline implementation of BHI in all domains, with lowest scores on communication and coordination and highest scores for depression. Higher scores were associated with: having any behavioral health provider, multispecialty practice, patient-centered medical home designation, and having any communication between behavioral health and primary care providers.ConclusionsThis study provides useful data on opportunities and challenges of scaling BHI integration linked to primary care transformation. Payment reform models such as CPC can assist in BHI promotion and development.
| S-EPMC5576039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician burnout is associated with deleterious effects for physicians and their patients and might be exacerbated by practice transformation.ObjectiveAssess the effect of the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative on primary care physician experience.DesignProspective cohort study conducted with about 500 CPC and 900 matched comparison practices. Mail surveys of primary care physicians, selected using cross-sectional stratified random selection 11 months into CPC, and a longitudinal design with sample replacement 44 months into CPC.ParticipantsPrimary care physicians in study practices.InterventionA multipayer primary care transformation initiative (October 2012-December 2016) that required care delivery changes and provided enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support.Main measuresBurnout, control over work, job satisfaction, likelihood of leaving current practice within 2 years.Key resultsMore than 1000 physicians responded (over 630 of these in CPC practices) in each round (response rates 70-81%, depending on round and research group). Physician experience outcomes were similar for physicians in CPC and comparison practices. About one third of physician respondents in CPC and comparison practices reported high levels of burnout in each round (32 and 29% in 2013 [P = 0.59], and 34 and 36% in 2016 [P = 0.63]). Physicians in CPC and comparison practices reported some to moderate control over work, with an average score from 0.50 to 0.55 out of 1 in 2013 and 2016 (CPC-comparison differences of - 0.04 in 2013 [95% CI - 0.08-0.00, P = 0.07], and - 0.03 in 2016 [95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.19]). In 2016, roughly three quarters of CPC and comparison physicians were satisfied with their current job (77 and 74%, P = 0.77) and about 15% planned to leave their practice within 2 years (14 and 15%, P = 0.17).ConclusionsDespite requiring substantial practice transformation, CPC did not affect physician experience. Research should track effects of other transformation initiatives on physicians and test new ways to address burnout.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.
| S-EPMC6318185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary pilot program evaluating bundled payments for several common cardiovascular conditions. Evaluating the external validity of this program is important for understanding the effects of bundled payments on cardiovascular care.ObjectiveTo determine whether participants in BPCI cardiovascular bundles are representative of US acute care hospitals and identify factors associated with participation.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional study of hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 bundles for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft, and percutaneous coronary intervention and nonparticipating control hospitals (October 2013 to January 2017). The BPCI participants were identified using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and controls were identified using the 2013 American Hospital Association's Survey of US Hospitals. Hospital structural characteristics and clinical performance data were obtained from the American Heart Association survey and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. One hundred fifty-nine hospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles and 1240 nonparticipating control hospitals were compared, and a multivariable logistic regression was estimated to identify predictors of BPCI participation.ExposuresBundled payments.Main outcomes and measuresHospital-level structural characteristics and 30-day risk-adjusted readmission and mortality rates for AMI and CHF.ResultsCompared with nonparticipants, BPCI participants were larger, more likely to be privately owned or teaching hospitals, had lower Medicaid bed day ratios (ratio of Medicaid inpatient days to total inpatient days: 17.0 vs 19.3; P < .001), and were less likely to be safety net hospitals (2.5% vs 12.3%; P < .001). The BPCI participants had higher AMI and CHF discharge volumes, were more likely to have cardiac intensive care units and catheterization laboratories, and had lower risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for AMI (13.7% vs 16.6%; P = .001) and CHF (11.3 vs 12.4; P = .005). In multivariable analysis, larger hospital size and access to a cardiac catheterization laboratory were positively associated with participation. Being a safety net hospital was negatively associated with participation (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.7; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals participating in BPCI model 2 cardiac bundles differed in significant ways from nonparticipating hospitals. The BPCI outcomes may therefore have limited external validity, particularly among small and safety net hospitals with limited clinical cardiac services.
| S-EPMC6583871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceStudies have shown that interprofessional education (IPE) improves learner proficiencies, but few have measured the association of IPE with patient outcomes, such as clinical quality.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of a multisite IPE initiative with quality of care.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used difference-in-differences analysis of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record data from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2015. Patients cared for by resident clinicians in 5 VA academic primary care clinics that participated in the Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education (CoEPCE), an initiative designed to promote IPE among physician, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, and psychologist trainees, were compared with patients cared for by resident clinicians in 5 regionally matched non-CoEPCE clinics using data for the 3 academic years (ie, July 1 to June 30) before and 4 academic years after the CoEPCE launch. Analysis was conducted from January 18, 2018, to January 17, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresAmong patients with diabetes, outcomes included annual hemoglobin A1c, poor hemoglobin A1c control (ie, <9% or unmeasured), and annual renal test; among patients 65 years and older, outcomes included prescription of high-risk medications; among patients with hypertension, outcomes included hypertension control (ie, blood pressure, <140/90 mm Hg); and among all patients, outcomes included timely mental health referrals, primary care mental health integrated visits, and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions.ResultsA total of 44 527 patients contributed 107 686 patient-years; 49 279 (45.8%) were CoEPCE resident patient-years (mean [SD] patient age, 59.3 [15.2] years; 26 206 [53.2%] white; 8073 [16.4%] women; mean [SD] patient Elixhauser comorbidity score, 12.9 [15.1]), and 58 407 (54.2%) were non-CoEPCE resident patient-years (mean [SD] patient age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 43 912 [75.2%] white; 4915 [8.4%] women; mean [SD] patient Elixhauser comorbidity score, 13.8 [15.7]). Compared with resident clinicians who did not participate in the CoEPCE initiative, CoEPCE training was associated with improvements in the proportion of patients with diabetes with poor hemoglobin A1c control (-4.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.5 to -1.8 percentage points; P < .001), annual renal testing among patients with diabetes (3.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 5.7 percentage points; P = .02), prescription of high-risk medications among patients 65 years and older (-2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.0 to -0.6 percentage points; P = .01), and timely mental health referrals (1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.6 percentage points; P = .002). Fewer patients cared for by CoEPCE resident clinicians had a hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition compared with patients cared for by non-CoEPCE resident clinicians in non-CoEPCE clinics (-0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.0 percentage points; P = .01). Sensitivity analyses with alternative comparison groups yielded similar results.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the CoEPCE initiative was associated with modest improvements in quality of care. Implementation of IPE was associated with improvements in patient outcomes and may potentiate delivery system reform efforts.
| S-EPMC6902823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPractice system tools improve chronic disease care, but are generally lacking for the care of depression in most primary care settings.ObjectiveTo describe the frequency of various depression-related practice system tools among Minnesota primary care clinics interested in improving depression care.DesignCross-sectional survey.ParticipantsPhysician leaders of 82 clinics in Minnesota.Main measuresA survey including practice systems recommended for care of depression and chronic conditions, each scored on a 100-point scale, and the clinic's priority for improving depression care on a 10-point scale.Key resultsFewer practice systems tools were present and functioning well for depression care (score?=?24.4 [SD 1.6]) than for the care of chronic conditions in general (score?=?43.9 [SD 1.6]), p?<?0.001. The average priority for improving depression care was 5.8 (SD 2.3). There was not a significant correlation between the presence of practice systems for depression or chronic disease care and the priority for depression care except for a modest correlation with the depression Decision Support subscale (r?=?0.29, p?=?0.008). Certain staffing patterns, a metropolitan-area clinic location, and the presence of a fully functional electronic medical record were associated with the presence of more practice system tools.ConclusionsFew practice system tools are in place for improving depression care in Minnesota primary care clinics, and these are less well-developed than general chronic disease practice systems. Future research should focus on demonstrating whether implementing these tools for depression care results in much-needed improvements in care for patients with depression.
| S-EPMC3157530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) involves the multidimensional assessment and management of an older person. It is well described in hospital and home-based settings. A novel approach could be to perform CGA within primary healthcare, the initial community located healthcare setting for patients, improving accessibility to a co-located multidisciplinary team. AIM:To appraise the evidence on CGA implemented within the primary care practice. METHODS:The review followed PRISMA recommendations. Eligible studies reported CGA on persons aged???65 in a primary care practice. Studies focusing on a single condition were excluded. Searches were run in five databases; reference lists and publications were screened. Two researchers independently screened for eligibility and assessed study quality. All study outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS:The authors screened 9003 titles, 145 abstracts and 97 full texts. Four studies were included. Limited study bias was observed. Studies were heterogeneous in design and reported outcomes. CGAs were led by a geriatrician (n?=?3) or nurse practitioner (n?=?1), with varied length and extent of follow-up (12-48 months). Post-intervention hospital admission rates showed mixed results, with improved adherence to medication modifications. No improvement in survival or functional outcomes was observed. Interventions were widely accepted and potentially cost-effective. DISCUSSION:The four studies demonstrated that CGA was acceptable and provided variable outcome benefit. Further research is needed to identify the most effective strategy for implementing CGA in primary care. Particular questions include identification of patients suitable for CGA within primary care CGA, a consensus list of outcome measures, and the role of different healthcare professionals in delivering CGA.
| S-EPMC7033083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Alcohol and tobacco use are common among U.S. women, yet if used during pregnancy these substances present significant preventable risks to prenatal and perinatal health. Because use of alcohol and tobacco often continue into the first trimester and beyond, especially among women with unintended pregnancies, effective evidence-based approaches are needed to decrease these risk behaviors. This study was designed to test the efficacy of CHOICES Plus, a preconception intervention for reducing the risk of alcohol- and tobacco-exposed pregnancies (AEPs and TEPs). STUDY DESIGN:RCT with two intervention groups: CHOICES Plus (n=131) versus Brief Advice (n=130). Data collected April 2011 to October 2013. Data analysis finalized February 2016. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Settings were 12 primary care clinics in a large Texas public healthcare system. Participants were women who were non-sterile, non-pregnant, aged 18-44 years, drinking more than three drinks per day or more than seven drinks per week, sexually active, and not using effective contraception (N=261). Forty-five percent were smokers. INTERVENTION:Interventions were two CHOICES Plus sessions and a contraceptive visit or Brief Advice and referral to community resources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcomes were reduced risk of AEP and TEP through 9-month follow-up. RESULTS:In intention-to-treat analyses across 9 months, the CHOICES Plus group was more likely than the Brief Advice group to reduce risk of AEP with an incidence rate ratio of 0.620 (95% CI=0.511, 0.757) and absolute risk reduction of -0.233 (95% CI=-0.239, -0.226). CHOICES Plus group members at risk for both exposures were more likely to reduce TEP risk (incidence rate ratio, 0.597; 95% CI=0.424, 0.840 and absolute risk reduction, -0.233; 95% CI=-0.019, -0.521). CONCLUSIONS:CHOICES Plus significantly reduced AEP and TEP risk. Addressing these commonly co-occurring risk factors in a single preconception program proved both feasible and efficacious in a low-income primary care population. Intervening with women before they become pregnant could shift the focus in clinical practice from treatment of substance-exposed pregnancies to prevention of a costly public health concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT01032772.
| S-EPMC6590512 | biostudies-literature