Primary Care Plus Research Articles

Highly Stable Beneficiary Attribution in Medicare's Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Model.

Advanced primary care models are key in moving primary care practices toward greater accountability for the quality and cost of a beneficiary's care. One critical but often overlooked detail in model design is the beneficiary attribution methodology. Attribution results are key inputs in calculating practice payments. Stable attribution yields predictable practice payments, fostering longer-term investments in advanced primary care. We examine attribution stability for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in Medicare's Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Model. To measure attribution stability, we calculate churn rates, which we define as the percentage of beneficiaries eligible for CPC+ who were not attributed to the same practice in a later period. Using 2017-2021 CPC+ program data and Medicare administrative data, we calculate churn rates for CPC+ overall and for beneficiary subgroups. To assess whether CPC+ attribution was responsive enough to changes in a beneficiary's practice, we calculate how long before attribution changes following a beneficiary's long-distance move. We find that for every 100 beneficiaries attributed to a CPC+ practice, 88 were still attributed to the same practice a year later (ie, churn rate of 12%), 79 were attributed 2 years later, 74 three years later, and 70 four years later. However, some vulnerable subgroups, such as disabled beneficiaries, had higher churn rates. Our analysis of long-distance movers reveals that only after 5 quarters did attribution change for more than half of these movers. Overall, high attribution stability may have encouraged CPC+ practices to make longer-term investments in advanced primary care.

Access to Mental Health and Substance Use Treatment in Comprehensive Primary Care Plus

To meet increasing demand for mental health and substance use services, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the 5-year Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) demonstration in 2017, requiring primary care practices to integrate behavioral health services. To examine the association of CPC+ with access to mental health and substance use treatment before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using difference-in-differences analyses, this retrospective cohort study compared adults attributed to CPC+ and non-CPC+ practices, from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. The study included adults aged 19 to 64 years who had depression, anxiety, or opioid use disorder (OUD) and were enrolled with a private health insurer in Pennsylvania. Data were analyzed from January to June 2023. Receipt of care at a practice participating in CPC+. Total cost of care and the number of primary care visits for evaluation and management, community mental health center visits, psychiatric hospitalizations, substance use treatment visits (residential and nonresidential), and prescriptions filled for antidepressants, anxiolytics, buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone. The 188 770 individuals in the sample included 102 733 adults (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [5.6] years; 57 531 women [56.4%]) attributed to 152 CPC+ practices and 86 037 adults (mean [SD] age, 51.6 [6.6] years; 47 321 women [54.9%]) attributed to 317 non-CPC+ practices. Among patients diagnosed with OUD, compared with patients attributed to non-CPC+ practices, attribution to a CPC+ practice was associated with filling more prescriptions for buprenorphine (0.117 [95% CI, 0.037 to 0.196] prescriptions per patient per quarter) and anxiolytics (0.162 [95% CI, 0.005 to 0.319] prescriptions per patient per quarter). Among patients diagnosed with depression or anxiety, attribution to a CPC+ practice was associated with more prescriptions for buprenorphine (0.024 [95% CI, 0.006 to 0.041] prescriptions per patient per quarter). Findings of this cohort study suggest that individuals with an OUD who received care at a CPC+ practice filled more buprenorphine and anxiolytics prescriptions compared with patients who received care at a non-CPC+ practice. As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation invests in advanced primary care demonstrations, it is critical to understand whether these models are associated with indicators of high-quality primary care.

Incorporating health IT into primary care transformation.

To understand the role of health information technology (IT) vendors and health IT functionality in supporting advanced primary care. We synthesized multiple rounds of surveys and interviews (2017-2022) from a mixed-methods evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+), a multipayer model developed by CMS. CPC+ was the first federal advanced primary care reform effort that formalized health IT vendors' roles in supporting health IT implementation and specified detailed health IT requirements for practices. We conducted content analysis to identify cross-cutting themes related to health IT for both practices and vendors, comparing similarities and differences across participants and (when possible) over time. Vendors and practices reported advances in registries and dashboards for improved information management within the practice as well as strengthened relationships between vendors and practices that supported health IT implementation. However, CPC+ practices noted several gaps or challenges using existing functionalities, and both vendors and practices reported broader challenges for more transformative health IT change, particularly the lack of interoperable health information exchange needed to support care management and care coordination. Key factors constraining vendors' investment in further advances included long product development schedules, making it difficult to respond to rapidly evolving model requirements. Vendors also shared that CPC+ practices represented a small fraction of their client base, so investing in developing new functionality was not strategic unless it was more broadly relevant outside CPC+. Continued collaboration among health IT vendors, practices, policy makers, and payers could support continued technological improvements, particularly related to information exchange and communication. Aligning requirements more closely with other federal and private models could also help mitigate the risk for vendors.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Model and Health Care Spending, Service Use, and Quality

Implemented in 18 regions, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) was the largest US primary care delivery model ever tested. Understanding its association with health outcomes is critical in designing future transformation models. To test whether CPC+ was associated with lower health care spending and utilization and improved quality of care. Difference-in-differences regression models compared changes in outcomes between the year before CPC+ and 5 intervention years for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to CPC+ and comparison practices. Participants included 1373 track 1 (1 549 585 beneficiaries) and 1515 track 2 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) primary care practices that applied to start CPC+ in 2017 and met minimum care delivery and other eligibility requirements. Comparison groups included 5243 track 1 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) and 3783 track 2 (4 507 499 beneficiaries) practices, matched, and weighted to have similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as CPC+ practices. Two-track design involving enhanced (higher for track 2) and alternative payments (track 2 only), care delivery requirements (greater for track 2), data feedback, learning, and health information technology support. The prespecified primary outcome was annualized Medicare Part A and B expenditures per beneficiary per month (PBPM). Secondary outcomes included expenditure categories, utilization (eg, hospitalizations), and claims-based quality-of-care process and outcome measures (eg, recommended tests for patients with diabetes and unplanned readmissions). Among the CPC+ patients, 5% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 87% were White, and 5% were of other races (including Asian/Other Pacific Islander and American Indian); 85% of CPC+ patients were older than 65 years and 58% were female. CPC+ was associated with no discernible changes in the total expenditures (track 1: $1.1 PBPM [90% CI, -$4.3 to $6.6], P = .74; track 2: $1.3 [90% CI, -$5 to $7.7], P = .73), and with increases in expenditures including enhanced payments (track 1: $13 [90% CI, $7 to $18], P < .001; track 2: $24 [90% CI, $18 to $31], P < .001). Among secondary outcomes, CPC+ was associated with decreases in emergency department visits starting in year 1, and in acute hospitalizations and acute inpatient expenditures in later years. Associations were more favorable for practices also participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and independent practices. CPC+ was not associated with meaningful changes in claims-based quality-of-care measures. Although the timing of the associations of CPC+ with reduced utilization and acute inpatient expenditures was consistent with the theory of change and early focus on episodic care management of CPC+, CPC+ was not associated with a reduction in total expenditures over 5 years. Positive interaction between CPC+ and the Shared Savings Program suggests transformation models might be more successful when provider cost-reduction incentives are aligned across specialties. Further adaptations and testing of primary care transformation models, as well as consideration of the larger context in which they operate, are needed.

Association of the Range of Outpatient Services Provided by Primary Care Physicians with Subsequent Health Care Costs and Utilization.

Broader primary care practice range of services (ROS), defined as the diversity of professional services delivered, is associated with lower utilization. ROS provided by individual primary care physicians (PCPs) varies considerably with unclear implications for patients. Create a PCP-ROS measure covering six categories of outpatient services, including expanded codes for mental health counseling services and point of care ultrasound (POCUS) technology in physician offices. Determine whether PCP-ROS is associated with total Medicare expenditures, inpatient admissions, acute hospital utilization (AHU), and emergency department (ED) visits. Examine physician and practice characteristics associated with PCP-ROS. Retrospective cohort study. 4,569,711 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and 27,008 PCPs observed during the evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC +) initiative. PCP-ROS, hospitalizations, AHU (includes observation stays as well as inpatient admissions), ED visits, and total Medicare expenditures. Physicians varied substantially in the range of services provided. Broader PCP-ROS was significantly, independently associated with 1 - 3% lower Medicare expenditures (p ≤ 0.01), inpatient admissions (p ≤ 0.027), AHU (p ≤ 0.025), and ED visit rates (p ≤ 0.000). PCP-ROS score was associated with improved patient outcomes, independent of physician provision of procedures (such as laceration repair or skin excisions). Physicians in practice sites affiliated with a hospital or health system had narrower PCP-ROS than independent physicians by 0.3 to 0.4 (p < 0.001). Internal medicine specialty was associated with narrower PCP-ROS than family medicine by 0.3 (p < 0.001). Patients cared for by primary care physicians who provide a broader range of services subsequently experience lower acute care utilization and expenditures than do those cared for by physicians with narrower ROS. Practice leaders and professional associations should consider how best to ensure that primary care physicians efficiently and effectively provide the office-based professional services most needed by their patients.

Participation in a Medicare advanced primary care model and the delivery of high-value services.

To evaluate whether primary care providers' participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative (CPC+) was associated with changes in their delivery of high-value services. Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners public use files from 2013 to 2019, 2017 to 2019 Medicare Part B claims for a 5% random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries, the Area Health Resources File, the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System files, and public use datasets from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare. We used a difference-in-difference approach with a propensity score-matched comparison group to estimate the association of CPC+ participation with the delivery of annual wellness visits (AWVs), advance care planning (ACP), flu shots, counseling to prevent tobacco use, and depression screening. These services are prominent examples of high-value services, providing benefits to patients at a reasonable cost. We examined both the likelihood of delivering these services within a year and the count of services delivered per 1000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries per year. Secondary data are linked at the provider level. We find that CPC+ participation was associated with increases in the likelihood of delivering AWVs (13.03 percentage points by CPC+'s third year, p < 0.001) and the number of AWVs per 1000 Medicare FFS beneficiaries (44 more AWVs by CPC+'s third year, p < 0.001). We also find that CPC+ participation was associated with more flu shots per 1000 beneficiaries (52 more shots by CPC+'s third year, p < 0.001) but not with the likelihood of delivering flu shots. We did not find consistent evidence for the association between CPC+ participation and ACP services, counseling to prevent tobacco use, or depression screening. CPC+ participation was associated with increases in the delivery of AWVs and flu shots, but not other high-value services.

Reducing Acute Hospitalizations at High-Performing CPC+ Primary Care Practice Sites: Strategies, Activities, and Facilitators.

Despite evidence suggesting that high-quality primary care can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations, many primary care practices face challenges in achieving this goal, and there is little guidance identifying effective strategies for reducing hospitalization rates. We aimed to understand how practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program substantially reduced their acute hospitalization rate (AHR) over 2 years. We used Bayesian analyses to identify the CPC+ practice sites having the highest probability of achieving a substantial reduction in the adjusted Medicare AHR between 2016 and 2018 (referred to here as AHR high performers). We then conducted telephone interviews with 64 respondents at 14 AHR high-performer sites and undertook within- and cross-case comparative analysis. The 14 AHR high performers experienced a 6% average decrease (range, 4% to 11%) in their Medicare AHR over the 2-year period. They credited various care delivery activities aligned with 3 strategies for reducing AHR: (1) improving and promoting prompt access to primary care, (2) identifying patients at high risk for hospitalization and addressing their needs with enhanced care management, and (3) expanding the breadth and depth of services offered at the practice site. They also identified facilitators of these strategies: enhanced payments through CPC+, prior primary care practice transformation experience, use of data to identify high-value activities for patient subgroups, teamwork, and organizational support for innovation. The AHR high performers observed that strengthening the local primary care infrastructure through practice-driven, targeted changes in access, care management, and comprehensiveness of care can meaningfully reduce acute hospitalizations. Other primary care practices taking on the challenging work of reducing hospitalizations can learn from CPC+ practices and may consider similar strategies, selecting activities that fit their context, personnel, patient population, and available resources.

Racial-Ethnic Composition of Primary Care Practices and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative Participation

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.

Survival and characteristics of older adults receiving home-based medical care: A nationwide analysis in Taiwan.

In Taiwan, the National Health Insurance Administration initiated the integrated home-based medical care (iHBMC) program in 2016 to improve accessibility to health care for homebound patients. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of older people receiving iHBMC services in Taiwan as well as the relationship between patient characteristics and survival. All older adults registered in the iHBMC application dataset were enrolled between March 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Data on social determinants of health (income level, residential area), functional status, consciousness status, nasogastric tube or urinary catheter placement, and major diseases were retrieved from the database. Data on the frequency of multidisciplinary team members' visits were collected. The survival rate was investigated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportional hazards univariate regression was conducted to analyze factors influencing survival rates. A total of 41,079 patients aged ≥65 years were enrolled in iHBMC services. The results showed that the one-year survival rates were 72.1%, 67.4%, and 14.7% in the home-based primary care (HBPC), home-based primary care plus (HBPC-Plus), and home-based palliative care (HBPalC), respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the HBPC-Plus patients underwent nasogastric tube placement. The Cox proportional hazards univariate regression analysis showed that a low urbanization level, a low income level, a low functional status, and an impaired consciousness status were significant predictors of poor survival after adjustment for confounding variables. Older adults receiving iHBMC services had a high mortality rate. The high rate of feeding tube use indicated that education and support for both clinical practitioners and family caregivers regarding careful hand feeding are warranted. There was a relationship between low income levels and poor survival in rural areas. Further research on whether social care could impact prognosis should be considered.

Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive primary care physicians report better primary care.

To examine whether primary care physician (PCP) comprehensiveness is associated with Medicare beneficiaries' overall rating of care from their PCP and staff. We linked Medicare claims with survey data from Medicare beneficiaries attributed to Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) physicians and practices. We performed regression analyses of the associations between two claims-based measures of PCP comprehensiveness in 2017 and beneficiaries' rating of care from their PCP and practice staff in 2018. The analytic sample included 6228 beneficiaries cared for by 3898 PCPs. Regressions controlled for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics. Beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rated care from their PCP and practice staff higher than did those with less comprehensive PCPs. For each comprehensiveness measure, beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 75th percentile were more likely than beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 25th percentile to rate their care highly (2 percentage point difference, p=0.02). Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rate overall care from their PCPs and staff higher than those with less comprehensive PCPs.

Older Adult and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Engagement in Primary Care.

The purpose of the current in-depth qualitative study was to explore the experiences of older adults and family caregivers in primary care. Twenty patients and caregivers from six Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) practices' Patient and Family Advisory Councils within a large academic health system participated in telephone interviews from December 2018 to May 2019. Participants were mostly women (60%), with an average age of 71 years and nine chronic conditions. Transcripts were coded using conventional content analysis. Two key themes emerged related to person-centered care (PCC): Engagement in Health Care and Patient-Provider Relationship. Engagement in health care was defined by participants as: being proactive, centering on patient goals in treatment discussions, adherence, and self-triaging. Approximately all participants discussed the importance of the relationship and interactions with their provider as influencing their engagement. The identified themes offer recommendations for further improvement of primary PCC. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(11), 7-13.].

Assessing patient, physician, and practice characteristics predicting the use of low-value services.

To examine characteristics of beneficiaries, physicians, and their practice sites associated with greater use of low-value services (LVS) using LVS measures that reflect current care practices. This study was conducted in the context of a large, nationwide primary care redesign initiative (Comprehensive Primary Care Plus), using Medicare claims data in 2018. We examined beneficiary-level total counts of LVS based on the existing 31 claims-based measures updated by excluding three services provided with diminishing frequency to Medicare beneficiaries and by replacing these with more recently identified LVS. We estimated hierarchical linear models with an extensive list of beneficiary, physician, and practice site characteristics to examine the contribution of characteristics at each level in predicting greater use of LVS. We also examined the proportion of variation in LVS use attributable to the set of characteristics at each level. The study included 5,074,642 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 32,406 primary care physicians in 11,009 primary care practice sites. Patients with disabilities, end-stage renal disease, and those in regions with higher poverty rates receive 10 (standard error [SE]=3.0), 80 (SE=14.0), and 10 (SE=1.0) more LVS per 1000 beneficiaries across all 31 measures combined than patients without such attributes, respectively. Greater physician comprehensiveness and an increase in the number of primary care practitioners at a practice were associated with 40 (SE=20.0) and 20 (SE=6.0) fewer LVS per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. Yet, the explanatory variables we examined only account for 11 percent of the variation in LVS use, with most of the variation (87 percent) being due to unobserved differences at the beneficiary level. Unexplained residual variation, from underlying patient preferences and behavior of non-primary care providers, could be important determinants of LVS use.

Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Did Not Improve Quality Or Lower Spending For The Privately Insured.

Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) was a multipayer payment reform model that provided incentives for primary care practices to lower spending and improve quality performance. Although CPC+ has been evaluated in Medicare, little is known about its impact in the private sector. Using claims and enrollment data from the period 2013-20 from two large insurers in Michigan, we performed difference-in-differences analyses and found that CPC+ was not associated with changes in total spending (-$44.70 per year) or overall quality performance (-0.1percentage point). These changes did not vary systematically across CPC+ cohorts, tracks, regions, or participation in prior primary care innovations. We conclude that CPC+ did not improve spending or quality for private-plan enrollees in Michigan, even before accounting for payouts to providers. This analysis adds to existing evidence that CPC+ may cost payers money in the short term, without concomitant improvements to care quality.

Revitalizing Primary Care, Part 2: Hopes for the Future.

Part 1 of this essay argued that the root causes of primary care's problems lie in (1) the low percent of national health expenditures dedicated to primary care and (2) overly large patient panels that clinicians without a team are unable to manage, leading to widespread burnout and poor patient access. Part 2 explores policies and practice changes that could solve or mitigate these primary care problems.Initiatives attempting to improve primary care are discussed. Diffuse multi-component initiatives-patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs), accountable care organizations (ACOs), and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+)-have had limited success in addressing primary care's core problems. More focused initiatives-care management, open access, and telehealth-offer more promise.To truly revitalize primary care, 2 fundamental changes are needed: (1) a substantially greater percent of health expenditures dedicated to primary care, and (2) the building of powerful teams that add capacity to care for large panels while reducing burnout.Part 2 of the essay reviews 3 approaches to increasing primary care spending: state-level legislation, eliminating Medicare's disparity between primary care and procedural specialty reimbursement, and efforts by health systems. The final section of Part 2 addresses the building of powerful core and interprofessional teams.

A qualitative study of patient perspectives of care management services in Comprehensive Primary Care Plus.

Care management has the potential to improve quality of care and health outcomes for chronic conditions, but questions remain about how patients perceive care management. Understanding patient perceptions is critical for ensuring care management can successfully engage patients and improve management of chronic conditions. To understand high-risk patients' experiences and perceptions of care management. We conducted 1-h phone interviews with 40 patients receiving care management at 12 practices participating in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Comprehensive Primary Care Plus model. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Most patients reported discussing health goals with their providers that aligned with their values and care preferences; a few reported that goal setting did not result in desired action steps. Most reported positive experiences receiving behavioural health support; a few reported unmet behavioural health needs that they had not expressed to their practice. Patients reported financial and transportation barriers to following care managers' recommendations. Care managers' active listening skills, accessibility, and caring personalities facilitated patient engagement. Practices should consider patient perspectives as they improve care management activities. Future research is needed to confirm our findings about patient perspectives regarding goal setting, behavioural health support, and barriers and facilitators to engagement.

Primary care redesign and care fragmentation among Medicare beneficiaries.

To determine associations between a large-scale primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Initiative-and the extent of continuity or fragmentation of ambulatory care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first 3 years of CPC+. We used a difference-in-differences framework with a comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC+ practices at baseline (eg, practice size, demographics, Medicare spending). Regressions controlled for clustering, baseline patient characteristics, and practice fixed effects. Our study covered January 2016 through December 2019 and included 1,085,707 beneficiaries attributed to 2883 CPC+ practices and 2,274,068 beneficiaries attributed to 6912 comparison practices. We focused on beneficiaries with highly fragmented care at baseline because they may have changed the most in response to CPC+. Key outcome measures were the numbers of ambulatory visits and unique practitioners, reported by specialty category; the percentage of visits with the usual provider of care (measuring continuity); and the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index (rBBI; measuringfragmentation). Medicare beneficiaries with high fragmentation (rBBI ≥ 0.85) at baseline (40% of the sample) had a mean of 13 ambulatory visits across 7 practitioners; the most frequent provider of care accounted for only 28% of visits. By contrast, the remaining beneficiaries had a mean of 10visits across 4 practitioners, with the most frequent provider accounting for 54% of visits. There were no differences in continuity or fragmentation of care for CPC+ vs comparisonbeneficiaries. We find no evidence that CPC+ increased continuity or decreased fragmentation of care.

Patient and family advisory councils (PFAC) feedback as the voice of health care consumers

Background: Throughout the U.S., healthcare organizations continuously find ways to incorporate patient feedback with efforts to advance the delivery of patient-centered care. Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) can be used as a strategy to better understand and honor the patient experience and improve care delivery thanks to patient input to obtain patient perspectives. The importance of formal efforts to incorporate the patient perspective is highlighted by the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services which requires organizations to establish PFACs to receive funding. Site support for PFACs included a patient experience manager who oversaw recruitment and facilitated each clinic’s council meetings. Other support personnel consisted of the practice manager, physicians, care coordinators, and advanced practice providers. This study employed a leadership framework to better understand how health care organizations use PFACs to discover and define patient/family advisors perspectives and how they can be related to different styles of leadership used within healthcare settings. Using contemporary leadership styles such as servant leadership, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, we examined perspectives of PFAC member’s associated with leadership and its effect on their experience as a patient/family advisor. This study aimed to understand the patient/family advisor perceptions associated with the impact of PFACs and the decisions surrounding the academic medical center and how health care leaders can support these perceptions with the leadership styles outlined above.

Countering the Tragedy of the Health Care Commons by Exnovation: Bringing Unexpected Problems and Solutions into View

In the health sciences and policy, it is common to view rising health care costs as a tragedy of the commons, i.e., a situation in which the unhampered use of a resource by rational individuals leads to its depletion. By monitoring a set of outcomes, not only the costs but also patient experience and population health, simultaneously, it is claimed that the “triple aim” approach changes what is rational for health care stakeholders and, thus, can counter the rapidly rising health care costs. This approach has an important limitation: it reduces the monitored innovations to merely their outcomes; yet, how health care professionals and patients give shape to care delivery remains invisible. To get a more in-depth understanding of the consequences of adopting such an approach, in this article I use the method of exnovation instead. Exnovation foregrounds the everyday accomplishments of health care practices to enable reflection and learning. I draw on an ethnographic study into an innovation in care delivery aimed at rendering it more sustainable: Primary Care Plus. I reflected with both professionals and patients on what happened during 40 Primary Care Plus consultations. By presenting and analyzing three of these consultations, I foreground what is rendered invisible with the triple aim: improvisations, surprises and habits unfolding in practice. With exnovation, health care innovations can provide fertile soil for creating new forms of sustainable care that can help prevent the impending exhaustion of health care systems.

Predicting Fragmented Care: Beneficiary, Primary Care Physician, and Practice Characteristics

Research ObjectiveIdentifying characteristics of beneficiaries, primary care physicians, and primary care practice sites that predict highly fragmented ambulatory care (that is, care spread across multiple providers without a dominant provider) is essential to develop effective interventions targeted at reducing fragmentation. High care fragmentation is associated with unnecessary procedures and testing, increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations, and increased medical costs.Study DesignThis study was conducted in the context of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Model (CPC+), a large primary care redesign initiative. We used Medicare claims data from January through December 2018 on Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) beneficiaries attributed to primary care practice sites participating in CPC+ and to comparison practices that were similar at baseline. We used hierarchical linear models to predict the likelihood of a beneficiary receiving highly fragmented care, defined as having a fragmentation score (measured by the reversed Bice‐Boxerman Index) ≥ 0.85. We used an extensive set of explanatory variables at each level (74 total variables) and group‐level random intercepts to understand how characteristics at each level help explain variation in fragmentation. We estimated separate models for the two CPC+ transformation/payment tracks.Population Studied3,541,136 Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to 26,344 primary care physicians in 9300 primary care practice sites.Principal FindingsThe three sets of explanatory variables (beneficiary, physician, and practice site) together only explained about 5 percent of the variation in the likelihood of high care fragmentation. Unobserved differences between primary care physicians and between primary care practice sites together accounted for only 4 percent of the variation. Instead, more than 91 percent of the variation in fragmentation consisted of unobserved residual variance. We identified several characteristics of beneficiaries (age, reason for original Medicare entitlement, and dual status), physicians (gender and measures of comprehensiveness of care), and practice sites (size, being part of a system/hospital, and census region) that had small associations with high fragmentation. Findings were similar by track.ConclusionsAlthough we identified a number of characteristics that predict high care fragmentation, most of the variation in fragmentation was not explained by observed beneficiary, primary care physician, or primary care practice characteristics. This suggests other providers and beneficiaries' preferences may be important factors.Implications for Policy or PracticeOur findings show that primary care physician and practice site characteristics explain only a small share of variation in care fragmentation. Behaviors of other health care providers not captured by regional controls, as well as unmeasured patient preferences, are likely to be important predictors of high care fragmentation.One implication of these findings is that interventions focused on primary care need to be sizable and targeted to decrease fragmentation. Further, future health care innovations might need to expand their focus beyond primary care to consider how specialists and hospitals work with primary care, ways to modify beneficiaries' self‐referral behavior, and the effect of market factors on the primary care practice environment. In addition, fully understanding the factors that drive fragmentation (and opportunities to reduce it) will require more data on specialists and their practices.Primary Funding SourceCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Controllable and non-controllable factors to measure performance in primary care practices under Medicare alternative payment models

We analyze the two recent Medicare alternative payment models, the comprehensive primary care plus (CPC+) and the primary care first (PCF). Both models comprise fee-for-service, traditional capitation, and pay-for-performance (P4P) components. The main objective of these reimbursement models is to advance toward value-based care. However, the models confer some hesitations since the P4P component is based on factors not entirely controlled by the practice, increasing the potential admission of healthier patients and affecting the profit of small primary care practices. We have modified the P4P component in both models to include a non-controllable agent (the hierarchical condition category score) and a controllable factor (the Bice–Boxerman continuity of care index) through a probabilistic classification model to predict hospital admissions. This study aims to determine the impact of adjusting the P4P component, in the CPC+ and PCF reimbursement models, on the profit per team, revenue for performance per team, and severity of admitted patients. We develop a mixed-integer programming formulation and analyze, using a 2k factorial design, the reimbursement models and the main elements of their adjusted P4P components (i.e., the probabilistic classification model coefficients and hospital admission threshold). The results indicate that the coefficients of the probabilistic classification model and the hospital admission threshold have a significant effect on the profit and revenue for performance per team. There is also a tendency of the PCF to admit less severe patients than the CPC+. Yet, the effects are more notable in the PCF payment model because the proportion of P4P in the total revenue under the CPC+ is minimal (16.5% versus <1%). Similarly, the PCF’s downside is its sensitivity to P4P changes, displaying high variability in the output variables under analysis.