Delivering PACT-principled care: are specialty care patients being left behind?

BACKGROUND

With the reorganization of primary care into Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) teams, the Veteran Affairs Health System (VA) aims to ensure all patients receive care based on patient-centered medical home (PCMH) principles. However, some patients receive the preponderance of care from specialty rather than primary care clinics because of the special nature of their clinical conditions. We examined seven VA (HIV) clinics as a model to test the extent to which such patients receive PCMH-principled care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent to which HIV specialty care in VA conforms to PCMH principles.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-one HIV providers from seven HIV clinics and 20 patients from four of these clinics.

APPROACH

We conducted semi-structured interviews with HIV clinic providers and patients about care practices and adherence to PCMH principles. Using an iterative approach, data was analyzed using both a content analysis and an a priori, PCMH-principled coding strategy.

KEY RESULTS

Patients with HIV receive varying levels of PCMH-principled care across a range of VA HIV clinic structures. The more PCMH-principled HIV clinics largely functioned as PCMHs; patients received integrated, coordinated, comprehensive primary care within a dedicated HIV clinic. In contrast, some clinics were unable to meet the criteria of being a patient's medical home, and instead functioned primarily as a place to receive HIV-related services with limited care coordination. Patients from the less PCMH-principled clinics reported less satisfaction with their care.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in a large, integrated healthcare system, there is wide variation in patients' receipt of PCMH-principled care in specialty care settings. In order to meet the goal of having all patients receiving PCMH-principled care, there needs to be careful consideration of where primary and specialty care services are delivered and coordinated. The best mechanisms for ensuring that patients with complex medical conditions receive PCMH-principled care may need to be tailored to different specialty care contexts.

Trends and quality of care in outpatient visits to generalist and specialist physicians delivering primary care in the United States, 1997-2010

BACKGROUND

Although many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and time trend analysis.

DATA

Nationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality.

KEY RESULTS

Among 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p = 0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p < 0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p < 0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p < 0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.

Urologists and the patient centered medical home

PURPOSE

Hopes are high that the delivery system reforms embodied in the patient centered medical home will improve the quality of care for patients with chronic diseases. While primary care physicians, given their training, will likely be the locus of care under this model, there are certain conditions for which urologists are well suited to provide the continuous and comprehensive care called for by the patient centered medical home. To assess the feasibility of the urology based patient centered medical home, we analyzed national survey data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For our measure of medical home infrastructure, we mapped items from the 2007 and 2008 NAMCS (National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey) to the NCQA (National Committee on Quality Assurance) standards for patient centered medical home recognition. We determined the proportion of urology practices in the United States that would achieve patient centered medical home recognition. Finally, we used NAMCS data to estimate the impact of consolidating genitourinary cancer (ie prostate, bladder, kidney and testis) followup care among the current supply of urologists.

RESULTS

Nearly three-quarters of urology practices meet NCQA standards for patient centered medical home recognition. At present, primary care physicians spend 9,295 cumulative workweeks providing direct and indirect care to survivors of genitourinary cancers. Off-loading half of this care to urology practices, in the context of the patient centered medical home, would generate an average of 0.73 additional workweeks for each practicing urologist.

CONCLUSIONS

Urology practices may possess the capacity needed to direct medical homes for their patients with genitourinary cancers. Successful implementation of this model would likely require a willingness to manage some nonurological conditions.

The patient-centered medical home and the nephrologist

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a model of practice that has been proposed to address the many ills of our current health care delivery and financing systems. At its heart is a primary care practice that provides comprehensive, coordinated, high-quality, personalized care. Integral to the success of the PCMH model is a "neighborhood" of specialists who subscribe to the principles of the PCMH. Nephrologists will have an opportunity to practice within this framework, either as the PCMH itself or, more likely, as "neighbors" to the "home." The effective and enthusiastic participation of nephrologists and other specialists will depend on the details of the model, not the least important of which is the financial structure. Dozens of demonstration projects around the country are currently testing the model. If the PCMH model proves to be workable and is widely adopted, nephrologists could be uniquely positioned to participate, given our long experience providing coordinated care for complex patients in a quality-conscious environment.

Physician practices and readiness for medical home reforms: policy, pitfalls, and possibilities

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of physician practices in the United States that currently meets medical home criteria.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

2007 and 2008 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

STUDY DESIGN

We mapped survey items to the National Committee on Quality Assurance's (NCQA's) medical home standards. After awarding points for each "passed" element, we calculated a practice's infrastructure score, dividing its cumulative total by the number of available points. We identified practices that would be recognized as a medical home (Level 1 [25-49 percent], Level 2 [50-74 percent], or Level 3 [infrastructure score ≥75 percent]) and examined characteristics associated with NCQA recognition.

RESULTS

Forty-six percent (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 42.5-50.2) of all practices lack sufficient medical home infrastructure. While 72.3 percent (95 percent CI, 64.0-80.7 percent) of multi-specialty groups would achieve recognition, only 49.8 percent (95 percent CI, 45.2-54.5 percent) of solo/partnership practices meet NCQA standards. Although better prepared than specialists, 40 percent of primary care practices would not qualify as a medical home under present criteria.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of all practices fail to meet NCQA standards for medical home recognition.

Consultations after elimination of payments for evaluation and management consultation codes

A consultation service provides expert opinion or advice at the request of another provider. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eliminated reimbursement for the outpatient and inpatient consultation codes traditionally used to report these services (CPT 99241-99245 and 99251-99255, respectively), and private payers are likely to follow suit. CMS has instead mandated that these services are mapped to new or established visit codes for outpatients (99201-99205 or 99212-99215) and to initial or subsequent hospital services codes for inpatients (99221-99223 or 99231-99233). This article reviews appropriate medical consultation and provides specific guidance for the reporting of these services to CMS and other payers not reimbursing consultation codes.

Specialty care and the patient-centered medical home

BACKGROUND

The medical home's success depends, in part, on the degree to which primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists collaborate to create "medical neighborhoods" based on collective accountability. Such collaboration may require a new equilibrium in chronic disease care, with some of the routine follow-up currently provided by specialists reallocated to PCPs and their medical home teams.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the care delivered by specialists for 7 chronic conditions, and to estimate the implications associated with reallocating half among the PCP workforce.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SUBJECTS

Physicians from the 2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

MEASURES

We identified adult ambulatory visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma, low back pain, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease/congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and depression. We calculated the time spent by specialists in direct and indirect care for established patients with these conditions. We summed individual physician estimates across specialists and converted the total into annual work weeks. After reducing this figure by half, we divided by the number of active PCPs.

RESULTS

Most specialty visits (76.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.6%-79.7%) were made by established patients. Specialists spent 552,844 (95% CI: 454,660-651,029) and 108,113 (95% CI: 86,103-130,122) cumulative work weeks providing direct and indirect follow-up care, respectively. Reallocating half of this care would generate 3.2 (95% CI: 2.6-3.8) additional work weeks for each PCP.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative time spent by specialists in routine chronic disease follow-up is nontrivial. Reallocation of this care to PCP-directed medical homes may require multidimensional efforts to expand the primary care workforce.