Costs of Transforming Established Primary Care Practices to Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs)

To What Extent Are ACO and PCMH Models Advancing the Triple Aim Objective? Implications and Considerations for Primary Care Medical Practices

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) have emerged to advance the health care system by achieving the Triple Aim of improving population health, reducing costs, and enhancing the patient experience. This review examines evidence regarding the relationship between these innovative care models and care outcomes, costs, and patient experiences. The 28 articles summarized in this review show that ACO and PCMH models play an important role in achieving the Triple Aim, when compared with conventional care models. However, there can be drawbacks associated with model implementation. The long-term success of these models still merits further investigation.

Embedded Health Systems Science as a driver of care improvement within an integrated delivery organization

BACKGROUND

Embedded Health Systems Science (HSS) has the potential to reduce gaps between research and delivery of evidence-based medicine. Models are needed to guide the development of embedded HSS in health care delivery organizations particularly with the rise of value-based care.

METHODS

The development of HSS infrastructure at a large nonprofit health care delivery organization is described, along with an embedded HSS diabetes study to illustrate the integration of program specific data, electronic health records, and health care system data infrastructure. To compare diabetes outcomes across four evidenced-based programs, a control group was developed from EHR data using propensity score matching. Mixed effect adjusted models were used to estimate reductions in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight.

RESULTS

Adjusted analyses using an EHR derived comparison group demonstrated significantly different findings than unadjusted pre to post analyses. The embedded HSS study indicates that appropriate statistical methods, staff with required expertise, and integration with health system data infrastructure are needed to develop timely and rigorous HSS outcomes that effectively improve patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedded HSS has the potential to inform value-based care models and contribute to evidence-based medicine approaches that improve patient care. Although developing system wide integrated data structures and staff with the appropriate skills requires substantial effort, the outcome is more reliable evaluations that lead to higher quality and higher value care.

IMPLICATIONS

Health care delivery organizations can improve patient care by dedicating resources to embed HSS into its routine operations.

Differences in Diabetes Care With and Without Certification as a Medical Home

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether primary care practices certified as medical homes differ in having the practice systems required for that designation and in attaining favorable outcomes for their patients with diabetes, and whether those systems are associated with better diabetes outcomes.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional observational study, Understanding Infrastructure Transformation Effects on Diabetes (UNITED), of 586 Minnesota adult primary care practices, comparing those that were certified vs uncertified as medical homes in 2017, with analyses supplemented by previously published studies of these practices. We collected survey information about the presence of medical home practice systems for diabetes care and obtained 6 standardized measures of diabetes care collected yearly from all Minnesota practices.

RESULTS

Of 416 practices completing questionnaires (71% of all practices, 92% of participating practices), 394 had data on diabetes care measures. Uncertified practices (39%) were more likely than certified practices to be rural, but their patient populations were similar. Certified practices had more medical home practice systems (79.2% vs 74.9%, P =.01) and were more likely to meet a composite measure of optimal diabetes care (46.8% vs 43.2%, P <.001). A 1-SD increase in presence of practice systems was associated with a 1.4% higher probability of meeting that measure (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Practices certified as medical homes have more practice systems and higher performance on diabetes care than uncertified practices, but there is extensive overlap, and any differences may reflect self-selection for certification.

Offsetting Patient-Centered Medical Homes Investment Costs Through Per-Member-Per-Month or Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System Incentive Payments

Primary care practices become patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) to improve care. However, investment costs and opportunities to offset those costs are critical to the decision. We examined potential offsets through commercial payer per-member-per-month (PMPM) payments and the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) for a network that spent $4 818 260 over 4 years obtaining and renewing PCMH recognition for 57 practices. With PMPM payments of $3.37 to $8.98, "breakeven" requires that 2.4% to 6.4% of the network's 1645 commercially insured patients per physician be covered, while applying MIPS incentive payments of half the maximum available each year to the network's average 2016 Medicare reimbursement of $196 812 per physician showed they would exceed PCMH costs by 2022.

Estimating the Costs of Implementing Comprehensive Primary Care: A Narrative Review

The performance of the any health-care system relies on a high-functioning primary care system. Increasing primary care practices' adoption of "comprehensive primary care" capabilities might yield meaningful improvements in the quality and efficiency of primary care. However, many comprehensive primary care capabilities, such as care management and coordination, are not compensated via traditional fee-for-service payment. To calculate new payments for these capabilities, policymakers would need estimates of the costs that practices incur when adopting, maintaining, and using the capabilities. We performed a narrative review of the existing literature on the costs of adopting and implementing comprehensive primary care capabilities. These studies have found that practices incur significant costs when adopting and implementing comprehensive primary care capabilities. However, the studies had significant limitations that prevent extensive use of their estimates for payment policy. Particularly, the strongest studies focused on a small numbers of practices in specific geographic areas and the concepts and methods used to assess costs varied greatly across the studies. Furthermore, none of the studies in our review attempted to estimate differences in costs across practices with patients at varying levels of complexity and illness burden which is important for risk-adjusting payments to practices. Therefore, due to the heterogeneous designs and limited generalizability of published studies highlight the need for additional research, especially if payers wish to link their financial support for comprehensive primary care capabilities to the costs of these capabilities for primary care practices.