How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models

BACKGROUND

A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention-how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic.

METHODS

Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was "better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic" because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+'s effects.

RESULTS

Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).

CONCLUSIONS

Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.

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

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether primary care physician (PCP) comprehensiveness is associated with Medicare beneficiaries' overall rating of care from their PCP and staff.

DATA SOURCES

We linked Medicare claims with survey data from Medicare beneficiaries attributed to Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) physicians and practices.

STUDY DESIGN

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.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The analytic sample included 6228 beneficiaries cared for by 3898 PCPs. Regressions controlled for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rate overall care from their PCPs and staff higher than those with less comprehensive PCPs.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Effects On Spending, Quality, Patients, And Physicians

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC), a health care delivery model developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), tested whether multipayer support of 502 primary care practices across the country would improve primary care delivery, improve care quality, or reduce spending. We evaluated the initiative's effects on care delivery and outcomes for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices, relative to those attributed to matched comparison practices. CPC practices reported improvements in primary care delivery, including care management for high-risk patients, enhanced access, and improved coordination of care transitions. The initiative slowed growth in emergency department visits by 2 percent in CPC practices, relative to comparison practices. However, it did not reduce Medicare spending enough to cover care management fees or appreciably improve physician or beneficiary experience or practice performance on a limited set of Medicare claims-based quality measures. As CMS and other payers increasingly use alternative payment models that reward quality and value, CPC provides important lessons about supporting practices in transforming care.

Patient Dismissal by Primary Care Practices

This survey study examines the prevalence of and reasons for patient dismissal among primary care practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care initiative and a matched sample of comparison practices.

Two-Year Costs and Quality in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

BACKGROUND

The 4-year, multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative was started in October 2012 to determine whether several forms of support would produce changes in care delivery that would improve the quality and reduce the costs of care at 497 primary care practices in seven regions across the United States. Support included the provision of care-management fees, the opportunity to earn shared savings, and the provision of data feedback and learning support.

METHODS

We tracked changes in the delivery of care by practices participating in the initiative and used difference-in-differences regressions to compare changes over the first 2 years of the initiative in Medicare expenditures, health care utilization, claims-based measures of quality, and patient experience for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices and a group of matched comparison practices.

RESULTS

During the first 2 years, initiative practices received a median of $115,000 per clinician in care-management fees. The practices reported improvements in approaches to the delivery of primary care in areas such as management of the care of high-risk patients and enhanced access to care. Changes in average monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary did not differ significantly between initiative and comparison practices when care-management fees were not taken into account (-$11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -$23 to $1; P=0.07; negative values indicate less growth in spending at initiative practices) or when these fees were taken into account ($7; 95% CI, -$5 to $19; P=0.27). The only significant differences in other measures were a 3% reduction in primary care visits for initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P<0.001) and changes in two of the six domains of patient experience--discussion of decisions regarding medication with patients and the provision of support for patients taking care of their own health--both of which showed a small improvement in initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P=0.006 and P<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Midway through this 4-year intervention, practices participating in the initiative have reported progress in transforming the delivery of primary care. However, at this point these practices have not yet shown savings in expenditures for Medicare Parts A and B after accounting for care-management fees, nor have they shown an appreciable improvement in the quality of care or patient experience. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.).