Behavioural health interventions in the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership: integrated care as a component of health systems transformation.

Health systems in the USA have received a mandate to improve quality while reining in costs. Several opportunities have been created to stimulate this transformation. This paper describes the design, early implementation and lessons learned for the behavioural components of the John Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) programme. J-CHiP is designed to improve health outcomes and reduce the total healthcare costs of a group of high healthcare use patients who are insured by the government-funded health insurance programmes, Medicaid and Medicare. These patients have a disproportionately high prevalence of depression, other psychiatric conditions, and unhealthy behaviours that could be addressed with behavioural interventions. The J-CHiP behavioural intervention is based on integrated care models, which include embedding mental health professionals into primary sites. A four-session behaviour-based protocol was developed to motivate self-efficacy through illness management skills. In addition to staff embedded in primary care, the programme design includes expedited access to specialist psychiatric services as well as a community outreach component that addresses stigma. The progress and challenges involved with developing this programme over a relatively short period of time are discussed.

"It's Tricky": Care Managers' Perspectives on Interacting with Primary Care Clinicians.

Care management programs that facilitate collaboration between care managers and primary care clinicians are more likely to be successful in improving chronic disease metrics than programs that do not facilitate such collaboration. The authors sought to understand care managers' perspectives on interacting with primary care clinicians. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with care managers (n = 29) from 3 health systems in and around a large, urban academic center. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and iteratively analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Care managers worked for health plans (14%), outpatient specialty clinics (31%), hospitals and emergency departments (24%), and primary care offices (14%). Care managers identified the primary care clinician as leading patients' care and as essential to avoiding unnecessary utilization. Care managers described variability in and barriers to interacting with primary care clinicians. When possible, care managers use the electronic medical record to facilitate interaction rather than communicating directly (eg, phone call) with primary care clinicians. The role of the care manager varied across programs, contributing to primary care clinicians' poor understanding of what the care manager could provide. Consequently, primary care clinicians asked the care manager for help with tasks beyond his/her role. Care managers felt inferior to primary care clinicians, a potential result of the traditional medical hierarchy, which also hindered interactions. Although care managers view interactions with the primary care clinician as essential to the health of the patient, communication challenges, variability of the care manager's role, and medical hierarchy limit collaboration.

A Targeted "Top 100" High-Risk Care Management Program Improves Adherence to Best Practices.

Care management programs for high-risk patients have yielded inconsistent results in reducing health care expenditures. We reviewed the most successful programs and identified 5 best practice areas: (1) in-person patient meetings; (2) direct care manager/physician interaction; (3) provide transitional care services; (4) educate patients; and (5) provide medication review. We measured adherence to the best practices at baseline and at 6 and 9 months into the program for the highest-risk patients. The program increased adherence from baseline to each best practice area. Program enrollment increased at the 6-month follow-up but fell at the 9-month follow-up.

Implementation of a comprehensive program to improve coordination of care in an urban academic health care system.

Purpose Academic healthcare systems face great challenges in coordinating services across a continuum of care that spans hospital, community providers, home and chronic care facilities. The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) was created to improve coordination of acute, sub-acute and ambulatory care for patients, and improve the health of high-risk patients in surrounding neighborhoods. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach J-CHiP targeted adults admitted to the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, patients discharged to participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and high-risk Medicare and Medicaid patients receiving primary care in eight nearby outpatient sites. The primary drivers of the program were redesigned acute care delivery, seamless transitions of care and deployment of community care teams. Findings Acute care interventions included risk screening, multidisciplinary care planning, pharmacist-driven medication management, patient/family education, communication with next provider and care coordination protocols for common conditions. Transition interventions included post-discharge health plans, hand-offs and follow-up with primary care providers, Transition Guides, a patient access line and collaboration with SNFs. Community interventions involved forming multidisciplinary care coordination teams, integrated behavioral care and new partnerships with community-based organizations. Originality/value This paper offers a detailed description of the design and implementation of a complex program to improve care coordination for high-risk patients in an urban setting. The case studies feature findings from each intervention that promoted patient engagement, strengthened collaboration with community-based organizations and improved coordination of care.

Association of a Care Coordination Model With Health Care Costs and Utilization: The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP).

Importance: The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership was created to improve care coordination across the continuum in East Baltimore, Maryland. Objective: To determine whether the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) was associated with improved outcomes and lower spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nonrandomized acute care intervention (ACI) and community intervention (CI) Medicare and Medicaid participants were analyzed in a quality improvement study using difference-in-differences designs with propensity score-weighted and matched comparison groups. The study spanned 2012 to 2016 and took place in acute care hospitals, primary care clinics, skilled nursing facilities, and community-based organizations. The ACI analysis compared outcomes of participants in Medicare and Medicaid during their 90-day postacute episode with those of a propensity score-weighted preintervention group at Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership hospitals and a concurrent comparison group drawn from similar Maryland hospitals. The CI analysis compared changes in outcomes of Medicare and Medicaid participants with those of a propensity score-matched comparison group of local residents. Interventions: The ACI bundle aimed to improve transition planning following discharge. The CI included enhanced care coordination and integrated behavioral support from local primary care sites in collaboration with community-based organizations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization measures of hospital admissions, 30-day readmissions, and emergency department visits; quality of care measures of potentially avoidable hospitalizations, practitioner follow-up visits; and total cost of care (TCOC) for Medicare and Medicaid participants. Results: The CI group had 2154 Medicare beneficiaries (1320 [61.3%] female; mean age, 69.3 years) and 2532 Medicaid beneficiaries (1483 [67.3%] female; mean age, 55.1 years). For the CI group's Medicaid participants, aggregate TCOC reduction was $24.4 million, and reductions of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, 30-day readmissions, and avoidable hospitalizations were 33, 51, 36, and 7 per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. The ACI group had 26 144 beneficiary-episodes for Medicare (13 726 [52.5%] female patients; mean patient age, 68.4 years) and 13 921 beneficiary-episodes for Medicaid (7392 [53.1%] female patients; mean patient age, 52.2 years). For the ACI group's Medicare participants, there was a significant reduction in aggregate TCOC of $29.2 million with increases in 90-day hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions of 11 and 14 per 1000 beneficiary-episodes, respectively, and reduction in practitioner follow-up visits of 41 and 29 per 1000 beneficiary-episodes for 7-day and 30-day visits, respectively. For the ACI group's Medicaid participants, there was a significant reduction in aggregate TCOC of $59.8 million and the 90-day emergency department visit rate decreased by 133 per 1000 episodes, but hospitalizations increased by 49 per 1000 episodes and practitioner follow-up visits decreased by 70 and 182 per 1000 episodes for 7-day and 30-day visits, respectively. In total, the CI and ACI were associated with $113.3 million in cost savings. Conclusions and Relevance: A care coordination model consisting of complementary bundled interventions in an urban academic environment was associated with lower spending and improved health outcomes.

Case Study: Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership: A model for transformation.

To address the challenging health care needs of the population served by an urban academic medical center, we developed the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP), a novel care coordination program that provides services in homes, community clinics, acute care hospitals, emergency departments, and skilled nursing facilities. This case study describes a comprehensive program that includes: a community-based intervention using multidisciplinary care teams that work closely with the patient's primary care provider; an acute care intervention bundle with collaborative team-based care; and a skilled nursing facility intervention emphasizing standardized transitions and targeted use of care pathways. The program seeks to improve clinical care within and across settings, to address the non-clinical determinants of health, and to ultimately improve healthcare utilization and costs. The case study introduces: a) main program features including rationale, goals, intervention design, and partnership development; b) illness burden and social barriers of the population contributing to care challenges and opportunities; and c) lessons learned with steps that have been taken to engage both patients and providers more actively in the care model. Urban health systems, including academic medical centers, must continue to innovate in care delivery through programs like J-CHiP to meet the needs of their patients and communities.

Chronic care improvement in primary care: evaluation of an integrated pay-for-performance and practice-based care coordination program among elderly patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of an intervention comprising (1) a practice-based care coordination program, (2) augmented by pay for performance (P4P) for meeting quality targets, and (3) complemented by a third-party disease management on quality of care and resource use for older adults with diabetes. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Claims files of a managed care organization (MCO) for 20,943 adults aged 65 and older with diabetes receiving care in Alabama, Tennessee, or Texas, from January 2004 to March 2007. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental, longitudinal study in which pre- and postdata from 1,587 patients in nine intervention primary care practices were evaluated against 19,356 patients in MCO comparison practices (>900). Five incentivized quality measures, two nonincentivized measures, and two resource-use measures were investigated. We examined trends and changes in trends from baseline to follow-up, contrasting intervention and comparison group member results. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Quality of care generally improved for both groups during the study period. Only slight differences were seen between the intervention and comparison group trends and changes in trends over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not generate evidence supporting a beneficial effect of an on-site care coordination intervention augmented by P4P and complemented by third-party disease management on diabetes quality or resource use.