Dataset Information

Defining High Value Elements for Reducing Cost and Utilization in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for the TOPMED Trial.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Like most patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models, Oregon's program, the Patient-Centered Primary Care Home (PCPCH), aims to improve care while reducing costs; however, previous work shows that PCMH models do not uniformly achieve desired outcomes. Our objective was to describe a process for refining PCMH models to identify high value elements (HVEs) that reduce cost and utilization. Methods:We performed a targeted literature review of each PCPCH core attribute. Value-related concepts and their metrics were abstracted, and studies were assessed for relevance and strength of evidence. Focus groups were held with stakeholders and patients, and themes related to each attribute were identified; calculation of HVE attainment versus PCPCH criteria were completed on eight primary care clinics. Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics and criterion validity with stakeholder input. Results:2,126 abstracts were reviewed; 22 met inclusion criteria. From these articles and focus groups of stakeholders/experts (n = 49; 4 groups) and patients (n = 7; 1 group), 12 HVEs were identified that may reduce cost and utilization. At baseline, clinics achieved, on average, 31.3 percent HVE levels compared to an average of 87.9 percent of the 35 PCMH measures. Discussion:A subset of measures from the PCPCH model were identified as "high value" in reducing cost and utilization. HVE performance was significantly lower than standard measures, and may better calibrate clinic ability to reduce costs. Conclusion:Through literature review and stakeholder engagement, we created a novel set of high value elements for advanced primary care likely to be more related to cost and utilization than other models.

SUBMITTER: Anastas TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6498873 | biostudies-other | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining High Value Elements for Reducing Cost and Utilization in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for the TOPMED Trial.

Anastas Tracy Marie TM Wagner Jesse J Ross Rachel Lauren RL Sachdeva Bhavaya B Michaels LeAnn L Gray Kimberley K Cartwright Katie K Dorr David A DA

EGEMS (Washington, DC) 20190503 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Like most patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models, Oregon's program, the Patient-Centered Primary Care Home (PCPCH), aims to improve care while reducing costs; however, previous work shows that PCMH models do not uniformly achieve desired outcomes. Our objective was to describe a process for refining PCMH models to identify high value elements (HVEs) that reduce cost and utilization.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a targeted literature review of each PCPCH core attribute. V ...[more]

PMID: 31106226

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes.ResultsSixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently.DiscussionPublished articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.

Project description:The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices' internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare. The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care. The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following: Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care. Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value Assessing development of practices' core processes and adaptive reserve. Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources. Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects. Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings. Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence that even small and solo primary care practices can successfully transition to full Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) status when provided with support, including practice redesign, care managers, and a revised payment plan. Less is known about the quality and efficiency outcomes associated with this transition.ObjectiveTest quality and efficiency outcomes associated with 2-year transition to PCMH status among physicians in intervention versus control practices.DesignRandomized Controlled Trial.ParticipantsEighteen intervention practices with 43 physicians and 14 control practices with 24 physicians; all from adult primary care practices.InterventionsModeled on 2008 NCQA PPC®-PCMH™, intervention practices received 18 months of tailored practice redesign support; 2 years of revised payment, including up to $2.50 per member per month (PMPM) for achieving quality targets and up to $2.50 PMPM for PPC-PCMH recognition; and 18 months of embedded care management support. Controls received yearly participation payments.Main measuresEleven clinical quality indicators from the 2009 HEDIS process and health outcomes measures derived from patient claims data; Ten efficiency indicators based on Thomson Reuter efficiency indexes and Emergency Department (ED) Visit Ratios; and a panel of costs of care measures.Key resultsCompared to control physicians, intervention physicians significantly improved TWO of 11 quality indicators: hypertensive blood pressure control over 2 years (intervention +23 percentage points, control -2 percentage points, p =0.02) and breast cancer screening over 3 years (intervention +3.5 percentage points, control -0.4 percentage points, p =0.03). Compared to control physicians, intervention physicians significantly improved ONE of ten efficiency indicators: number of care episodes resulting in ED visits was reduced (intervention -0.7 percentage points, control + 0.5 percentage points, p = 0.002), with 3.8 fewer ED visits per year, saving approximately $1,900 in ED costs per physician, per year. There were no significant cost-savings on any of the pre-specified costs of care measures.ConclusionsIn a randomized trial, we observed that some indicators of quality and efficiency of care in general adult primary care practices transitioning to PCMH status can be significantly, but modestly, improved over 2 years, although most indicators did not improve and there were no cost-savings compared with control practices. For the most part, quality and efficiency of care provided in unsupported control practices remained unchanged or worsened during the trial.

Project description:BackgroundEnhanced primary care models have diffused slowly and shown uneven results. Because their structural features are costly and challenging for small practices to implement, they offer modest rewards for improved performance, and improvement takes time.ObjectiveTo test whether a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that significantly rewarded cost savings and accommodated small primary care practices was associated with lower spending, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer emergency room visits.DesignWe compared medical care expenditures and utilization among adults who participated in the PCMH program to adults who did not participate. We computed difference-in-difference estimates using two-part multivariate generalized linear models for expenditures and negative binomial models for utilization. Control variables included patient demographics, county, chronic condition indicators, and illness severity.ParticipantsA total of 1,433,297 adults aged 18-64 years, residing in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and insured by CareFirst for at least 3 consecutive months between 2010 and 2013.InterventionCareFirst implemented enhanced fee-for-service payments to the practices, offered a large retrospective bonus if annual cost and quality targets were exceeded, and provided information and care coordination support.MeasuresOutcomes were quarterly claims expenditures per member for all covered services, inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drugs, and quarterly inpatient admissions and emergency room visits.ResultsBy the third intervention year, annual adjusted total claims payments were $109 per participating member (95 % CI: -$192, -$27), or 2.8 % lower than before the program and compared to those who did not participate. Forty-two percent of the overall decline in spending was explained by lower inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drug spending. Much of the reduction in inpatient and emergency spending was explained by lower utilization of services.ConclusionsA PCMH model that does not require practices to make infrastructure investments and that rewards cost savings can reduce spending and utilization.

Dataset Information

Defining High Value Elements for Reducing Cost and Utilization in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for the TOPMED Trial.

Publications

Defining High Value Elements for Reducing Cost and Utilization in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for the TOPMED Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure