Defining High Value Elements for Reducing Cost and Utilization in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for the TOPMED Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Anastas TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6498873 | biostudies-other | 2019 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC7174518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care in the United States is in the midst of a near perfect storm: strong cost pressures, dramatic redesign efforts like patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations, and a broad series of payment and eligibility reforms. To date, alternative models of care intended to reduce costs and improve outcomes have shown mixed effects in the U.S., in part due to the difficulty of performing rigorous evaluation studies that control for the broader transformation while avoiding other biases, such as organizational or clinic effect on individual patient outcomes. Our objective is to test whether clinics assigned to achieve high value elements (HVEs) of practice redesign are more likely than controls to achieve improvements in patient health and satisfaction with care and reduction in costs.Methods/designTo prepare, we interview stakeholders, align with health reform, and propose a pilot. Participants are primary care clinics engaged in reform. Study protocol requires that both arms receive monthly practice facilitation, IT-based milestone reporting, and small financial incentives based on self-determined quality improvement (QI) goals; intervention receives additional prompting to choose HVEs. Design is a cluster randomized controlled trial over 1 year with pre- and post-washout periods. Outcomes are unplanned utilization and costs, patient experience of care, quality, and team performance. Analysis is a multivariate difference-in-difference with adjustments for patient risk, intraclinic correlation, and other confounders.DiscussionThe TOPMED study is a cluster randomized controlled trial focused on learning how primary care practices can transform within health reform guidelines to achieve outcomes related to the Triple Aim.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02106221.
| S-EPMC4307890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess whether adoption of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) reduces emergency department (ED) utilization among patients with and without chronic illness.Data from approximately 460,000 Independence Blue Cross patients enrolled in 280 primary care practices, all converting to PCMH status between 2008 and 2012.We estimate the effect of a practice becoming PCMH-certified on ED visits and costs using a difference-in-differences approach which exploits variation in the timing of PCMH certification, employing either practice or patient fixed effects. We analyzed patients with and without chronic illness across six chronic illness categories.Among chronically ill patients, transition to PCMH status was associated with 5-8 percent reductions in ED utilization. This finding was robust to a number of specifications, including analyzing avoidable and weekend ED visits alone. The largest reductions in ED visits are concentrated among chronic patients with diabetes and hypertension.Adoption of the PCMH model was associated with lower ED utilization for chronically ill patients, but not for those without chronic illness. The effectiveness of the PCMH model varies by chronic condition. Analysis of weekend and avoidable ED visits suggests that reductions in ED utilization stem from better management of chronic illness rather than expanding access to primary care clinics.
| S-EPMC4369216 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC2869425 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3663935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare health care utilization and payments between NCQA-recognized patient-centered medical home (PCMH) practices and practices without such recognition.Data sourcesMedicare Part A and B claims files from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010, 2009 Census, 2007 Health Resources and Services Administration and CMS Utilization file, Medicare's Enrollment Data Base, and the 2005 American Medical Association Physician Workforce file.Study designThis study used a longitudinal, nonexperimental design. Three annual observations (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2010) were available for each practice. We compared selected outcomes between practices with and those without NCQA PCMH recognition.Data collection methodsIndividual Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries and their claims and utilization data were assigned to PCMH or comparison practices based on where they received the plurality of evaluation and management services between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008.Principal findingsRelative to the comparison group, total Medicare payments, acute care payments, and the number of emergency room visits declined after practices received NCQA PCMH recognition. The decline was larger for practices with sicker than average patients, primary care practices, and solo practices.ConclusionsThis study provides additional evidence about the potential of the PCMH model for reducing health care utilization and the cost of care.
| S-EPMC4319881 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5071295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model has been widely adopted, but the evidence on its effectiveness remains mixed. One potential explanation for these mixed findings is variation in how the model is implemented by practices.ObjectiveTo identify the impact of different approaches to PCMH adoption on health care utilization in a long-term, geographically diverse sample of patients.DesignDifference-in-differences evaluation of PCMH impact on cost and utilization.SubjectsA total of 5,314,284 patient-year observations from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, and 5943 practices which adopted the PCMH model in 14 states between 2011 and 2015.InterventionPCMH adoption, as defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance.MeasurementsSix claims-based utilization measures, plus total health care expenditures. We employ hierarchical clustering to organize practices into groups based on their PCMH capabilities, then use generalized difference-in-differences models with practice or patient fixed effects to estimate the effect of PCMH recognition (overall and separately by the groups identified by the clustering algorithm) on utilization.ResultsPCMH adoption was associated with a >8% reduction in total expenditures. We find significant reductions in emergency department utilization and outpatient care, and both lab and imaging services. In our by-group results we find that while the reduction in outpatient care is significant across all 3 groups, the reduction in emergency department utilization is driven entirely by 1 group with enhanced electronic communications.ConclusionThe PCMH model has significant impact on patterns of health care utilization, especially when heterogeneity in implementation is accounted for in program evaluation.
| S-EPMC7993910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model emphasizes comprehensive, coordinated, patient-centered care, with the goals of reducing spending and improving quality. To evaluate the impact of PCMH initiatives on utilization, cost, and quality, we conducted a meta-analysis of methodologically standardized findings from evaluations of eleven major PCMH initiatives. There was significant heterogeneity across individual evaluations in many outcomes. Across evaluations, PCMH initiatives were not associated with changes in the majority of outcomes studied, including primary care, emergency department, and inpatient visits and four quality measures. The initiatives were associated with a 1.5 percent reduction in the use of specialty visits and a 1.2 percent increase in cervical cancer screening among all patients, and a 4.2 percent reduction in total spending (excluding pharmacy spending) and a 1.4 percent increase in breast cancer screening among higher-morbidity patients. These associations were significant. Identification of the components of PCMHs likely to improve outcomes is critical to decisions about investing resources in primary care.
| S-EPMC5555150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterest in the patient centered medical home (PCMH) model has increased significantly in recent years. Despite this attention, information is limited regarding the influence of policy context on implementation of the PCMH model. Using comparative, qualitative data, we identify several key policy impediments to PCMH implementation, and propose practical guidelines for addressing these issues.Research designQualitative, semi-structured in-person interviews with representatives of physician organizations and primary care practices pursuing PCMH.ParticipantsPractitioners and staff at 16 physician practices in Michigan, as well as key leaders of physician organizations.Key resultsWe identified five primary policy issues cited by physicians and physician organization leaders as most impactful on their efforts to adopt PCMH: misalignment of current reimbursement schemes, administrative burden, conflicting criteria for PCMH designation, workforce policy issues, and uncertainty of health care reform. These policies were largely seen as barriers to their ability to implement PCMH.ConclusionsProviders' motivation to embrace PCMH, and their level of confidence regarding the results of such change, are greatly influenced by their perception of the external environment and the control they believe they have over this environment. Having policies in place that shape the path to PCMH in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for providers to accomplish the desired changes could well make the difference in whether successful transformation is achieved.
| S-EPMC3539022 | biostudies-literature