Article

Effect of a Multipayer Patient-Centered Medical Home on Health Care Utilization and Quality The Rhode Island Chronic Care Sustainability Initiative Pilot Program

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 09/2013; 173(20). DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10063
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT IMPORTANCE The patient-centered medical home is advocated to reduce health care costs and improve the quality of care. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of the pilot program of a multipayer patient-centered medical home on health care utilization and quality. DESIGN An interrupted time series design with propensity score-matched comparison practices, including multipayer claims data from 2 years before (October 1, 2006-September 30, 2008) and 2 years after (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2010) the launch of the pilot program. Uptake of the intervention was measured with audit data from the National Committee for Quality Assurance patient-centered medical home recognition process. SETTING Five independent primary care practices and 3 private insurers in the Rhode Island Chronic Care Sustainability Initiative. PARTICIPANTS Patients in 5 pilot and 34 comparison practices. INTERVENTIONS Financial support, care managers, and technical assistance for quality improvement and practice transformation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and 6 process measures of quality of care (3 for diabetes mellitus and 3 for colon, breast, and cervical cancer screening). RESULTS The mean National Committee for Quality Assurance recognition scores of the pilot practices increased from 42 to 90 points of a possible 100 points. The pilot and comparison practices had statistically indistinguishable baseline patient characteristics and practice patterns, except for higher numbers of attributed member months per year in the pilot practices (31 130 per practice vs 14 779, P = .01) and lower rates of cervical cancer screening in the comparison practices. Although estimates of the emergency department visits and inpatient admissions of patients in the pilot practices trended toward lower utilization, the only significant difference was a lower rate of ambulatory care sensitive emergency department visits in the pilot practices. The Chronic Care Sustainability Initiative pilot program was associated with a reduction in ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits of approximately 0.8 per 1000 member months or approximately 11.6% compared with the baseline rate of 6.9 for emergency department visits per 1000 member months (P = .002). No significant improvements were found in any of the quality measures. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE After 2 years, a pilot program of a patient-centered medical home was associated with substantial improvements in medical home recognition scores and a significant reduction in ambulatory care sensitive emergency department visits. Although not achieving significance, there were downward trends in emergency department visits and inpatient admissions.

2 Followers
 · 
138 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient-centered medical homes have not been shown to reduce adverse outcomes or costs in adults or children with chronic illness. To assess whether an enhanced medical home providing comprehensive care prevents serious illness (death, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or hospital stay >7 days) and/or reduces costs among children with chronic illness. Randomized clinical trial of high-risk children with chronic illness (≥3 emergency department visits, ≥2 hospitalizations, or ≥1 pediatric ICU admissions during previous year, and >50% estimated risk for hospitalization) treated at a high-risk clinic at the University of Texas, Houston, and randomized to comprehensive care (n = 105) or usual care (n = 96). Enrollment was between March 2011 and February 2013 (when predefined stopping rules for benefit were met) and outcome evaluations continued through August 31, 2013. Comprehensive care included treatment from primary care clinicians and specialists in the same clinic with multiple features to promote prompt effective care. Usual care was provided locally in private offices or faculty-supervised clinics without modification. Primary outcome: children with a serious illness (death, ICU admission, or hospital stay >7 days), costs (health system perspective). Secondary outcomes: individual serious illnesses, medical services, Medicaid payments, and medical school revenues and costs. In an intent-to-treat analysis, comprehensive care decreased both the rate of children with a serious illness (10 per 100 child-years vs 22 for usual care; rate ratio [RR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28-0.73]), and total hospital and clinic costs ($16,523 vs $26,781 per child-year, respectively; cost ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38-0.88]). In analyses of net monetary benefit, the probability that comprehensive care was cost neutral or cost saving was 97%. Comprehensive care reduced (per 100 child-years) serious illnesses (16 vs 44 for usual care; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.17-0.66]), emergency department visits (90 vs 190; RR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.34-0.67]), hospitalizations (69 vs 131; RR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]), pediatric ICU admissions (9 vs 26; RR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.18-0.70]), and number of days in a hospital (276 vs 635; RR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.19-0.67]). Medicaid payments were reduced by $6243 (95% CI, $1302-$11,678) per child-year. Medical school losses (costs minus revenues) increased by $6018 (95% CI, $5506-$6629) per child-year. Among high-risk children with chronic illness, an enhanced medical home that provided comprehensive care to promote prompt effective care vs usual care reduced serious illnesses and costs. These findings from a single site of selected patients with a limited number of clinicians require study in larger, broader populations before conclusions about generalizability to other settings can be reached. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02128776.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 12/2014; 312(24):2640-8. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.16419 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Spending and quality under global budgets remain unknown beyond 2 years. We evaluated spending and quality measures during the first 4 years of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC). METHODS We compared spending and quality among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC from 2009 through 2012 with those among persons in control states. We studied spending changes according to year, category of service, site of care, experience managing risk contracts, and price versus utilization. We evaluated process and outcome quality. RESULTS In the 2009 AQC cohort, medical spending on claims grew an average of $62.21 per enrollee per quarter less than it did in the control cohort over the 4-year period (P<0.001). This amount is equivalent to a 6.8% savings when calculated as a proportion of the average post-AQC spending level in the 2009 AQC cohort. Analogously, the 2010, 2011, and 2012 cohorts had average savings of 8.8% (P<0.001), 9.1% (P<0.001), and 5.8% (P = 0.04), respectively, by the end of 2012. Claims savings were concentrated in the outpatient-facility setting and in procedures, imaging, and tests, explained by both reduced prices and reduced utilization. Claims savings were exceeded by incentive payments to providers during the period from 2009 through 2011 but exceeded incentive payments in 2012, generating net savings. Improvements in quality among AQC cohorts generally exceeded those seen elsewhere in New England and nationally. CONCLUSIONS As compared with similar populations in other states, Massachusetts AQC enrollees had lower spending growth and generally greater quality improvements after 4 years. Although other factors in Massachusetts may have contributed, particularly in the later part of the study period, global budget contracts with quality incentives may encourage changes in practice patterns that help reduce spending and improve quality.
    New England Journal of Medicine 10/2014; 371(18):1704-14. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa1404026 · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been relatively little empirical evidence about the effects of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation on patient-related outcomes and costs. Using a longitudinal design and a large study group of 2,218 Michigan adult primary care practices, our study examined the following research questions: Is the level of, and change in, implementation of PCMH associated with medical surgical cost, preventive services utilization, and quality of care in the following year? Results indicated that both level and amount of change in practice implementation of PCMH are independently and positively associated with measures of quality of care and use of preventive services, after controlling for a variety of practice, patient cohort, and practice environmental characteristics. Results also indicate that lower overall medical and surgical costs are associated with higher levels of PCMH implementation, although change in PCMH implementation did not achieve statistical significance. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Medical Care Research and Review 04/2015; DOI:10.1177/1077558715579862 · 2.57 Impact Factor