The Changing Landscape Of Primary Care: Effects Of The ACA And Other Efforts Over The Past Decade.

Providing high-quality primary care is key to improving health care in the United States. The Affordable Care Act sharpened the emerging focus on primary care as a critical lever to use in improving health care delivery, lowering costs, and improving the quality of care. We describe primary care delivery system reform models that were developed and tested over the past decade by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation-which was created by the Affordable Care Act-and reflect on key lessons and remaining challenges. Considerable progress has been made in understanding how to implement and support different approaches to improving primary care delivery in that decade, though evaluations showed little progress in spending or quality outcomes. This may be because none of the models was able to test substantial increases in primary care payment or strong incentives for other providers to coordinate with primary care to reduce costs and improve quality.

Aggregating Claims Data Across Payers: Approaches, Challenges, and Lessons Learned From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

The Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative fueled the emergence of new organizational alliances and financial commitments among payers and primary care practices to use data for performance improvement. In most regions of the country, practices received separate confidential feedback reports of claims-based measures from multiple payers, which varied in content and provided an incomplete picture of a practice's patient panel. Over CPC's last few years, participating payers in several regions resisted the tendency to guard data as a proprietary asset, instead working collaboratively to produce aggregated performance feedback for practices. Aggregating claims data across payers is a potential game changer in improving practice performance because doing so potentially makes the data more accessible, comprehensive, and useful. Understanding lessons learned and key challenges can help other initiatives that are aggregating claims or clinical data across payers for primary care practices or other types of providers.

The Effects of a Primary Care Transformation Initiative on Primary Care Physician Burnout and Workplace Experience.

BACKGROUND: Physician burnout is associated with deleterious effects for physicians and their patients and might be exacerbated by practice transformation. OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative on primary care physician experience. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted with about 500 CPC and 900 matched comparison practices. Mail surveys of primary care physicians, selected using cross-sectional stratified random selection 11 months into CPC, and a longitudinal design with sample replacement 44 months into CPC. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in study practices. INTERVENTION: A multipayer primary care transformation initiative (October 2012-December 2016) that required care delivery changes and provided enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support. MAIN MEASURES: Burnout, control over work, job satisfaction, likelihood of leaving current practice within 2 years. KEY RESULTS: More than 1000 physicians responded (over 630 of these in CPC practices) in each round (response rates 70-81%, depending on round and research group). Physician experience outcomes were similar for physicians in CPC and comparison practices. About one third of physician respondents in CPC and comparison practices reported high levels of burnout in each round (32 and 29% in 2013 [P = 0.59], and 34 and 36% in 2016 [P = 0.63]). Physicians in CPC and comparison practices reported some to moderate control over work, with an average score from 0.50 to 0.55 out of 1 in 2013 and 2016 (CPC-comparison differences of - 0.04 in 2013 [95% CI - 0.08-0.00, P = 0.07], and - 0.03 in 2016 [95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.19]). In 2016, roughly three quarters of CPC and comparison physicians were satisfied with their current job (77 and 74%, P = 0.77) and about 15% planned to leave their practice within 2 years (14 and 15%, P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Despite requiring substantial practice transformation, CPC did not affect physician experience. Research should track effects of other transformation initiatives on physicians and test new ways to address burnout. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.

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.

Strengthening Multipayer Collaboration: Lessons From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

Policy Points: Collaboration across payers to align financial incentives, quality measurement, and data feedback to support practice transformation is critical, but challenging due to competitive market dynamics and competing institutional priorities. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or other entities convening multipayer initiatives can build trust with other participants by clearly outlining each participant's role and the parameters of collaboration at the outset of the initiative. Multipayer collaboration can be improved if participating payers employ neutral, proactive meeting facilitators; develop formal decision-making processes; seek input on decisions from practice representatives; and champion the initiative within their organizations. CONTEXT: With increasing frequency, public and private payers are joining forces to align goals and resources for primary care transformation. However, sustaining engagement and achieving coordination among payers can be challenging. The Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative is one of the largest multipayer initiatives ever tested. Drawing on the experience of the CPC initiative, this paper examines the factors that influence the effectiveness of multipayer collaboration. METHODS: This paper draws largely on semistructured interviews with CPC-participating payers and payer conveners that facilitated CPC discussions and on observation of payer meetings. We coded and analyzed these qualitative data to describe collaborative dynamics and outcomes and assess the factors influencing them. FINDINGS: We found that several factors appeared to increase the likelihood of successful payer collaboration: contracting with effective, neutral payer conveners; leveraging the support of payer champions, and seeking input on decisions from practice representatives. The presence of these factors helped some CPC regions overcome significant initial barriers to achieve common goals. We also found that leadership from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was key to achieving broad payer engagement in CPC, but CMS's dual role as initiative convener and participating payer at times made collaboration challenging. CMS was able to build trust with other payers by clarifying which parts of CPC could be adapted to regional contexts, deferring to other payers for these decisions, and increasing opportunities for payers to meet with CMS representatives. CONCLUSIONS: CPC demonstrates that when certain facilitating factors are present, payers can overcome competitive market dynamics and competing institutional priorities to align financial incentives, quality measurement, and data feedback to support practice transformation. Lessons from this large-scale, multipayer initiative may be helpful for other multipayer efforts getting under way.

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation.

BACKGROUND: Much research does not address the practical needs of stakeholders responsible for introducing health care delivery interventions into organizations working to achieve better outcomes. In this article, we present an approach to using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide systematic research that supports rapid-cycle evaluation of the implementation of health care delivery interventions and produces actionable evaluation findings intended to improve implementation in a timely manner. METHODS: To present our approach, we describe a formative cross-case qualitative investigation of 21 primary care practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative, a multi-payer supported primary care practice transformation intervention led by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Qualitative data include observational field notes and semi-structured interviews with primary care practice leadership, clinicians, and administrative and medical support staff. We use intervention-specific codes, and CFIR constructs to reduce and organize the data to support cross-case analysis of patterns of barriers and facilitators relating to different CPC components. RESULTS: Using the CFIR to guide data collection, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings supported a systematic, comprehensive, and timely understanding of barriers and facilitators to practice transformation. Our approach to using the CFIR produced actionable findings for improving implementation effectiveness during this initiative and for identifying improvements to implementation strategies for future practice transformation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: The CFIR is a useful tool for guiding rapid-cycle evaluation of the implementation of practice transformation initiatives. Using the approach described here, we systematically identified where adjustments and refinements to the intervention could be made in the second year of the 4-year intervention. We think the approach we describe has broad application and encourage others to use the CFIR, along with intervention-specific codes, to guide the efficient and rigorous analysis of rich qualitative data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02318108.

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.).

Enhancing the primary care team to provide redesigned care: the roles of practice facilitators and care managers.

Efforts to redesign primary care require multiple supports. Two potential members of the primary care team-practice facilitator and care manager-can play important but distinct roles in redesigning and improving care delivery. Facilitators, also known as quality improvement coaches, assist practices with coordinating their quality improvement activities and help build capacity for those activities-reflecting a systems-level approach to improving quality, safety, and implementation of evidence-based practices. Care managers provide direct patient care by coordinating care and helping patients navigate the system, improving access for patients, and communicating across the care team. These complementary roles aim to help primary care practices deliver coordinated, accessible, comprehensive, and patient-centered care.

Using qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate small-scale disease management pilot programs.

Interest in disease management programs continues to grow as managed care plans, the federal and state governments, and other organizations consider such efforts as a means to improve health care quality and reduce costs. These efforts vary in size, scope, and target population. While large-scale programs provide the means to measure impacts, evaluation of smaller interventions remains valuable as they often represent the early planning stages of larger initiatives. This paper describes a multi-method approach for evaluating small interventions that sought to improve the quality of care for Medicaid beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. Our approach relied on quantitative and qualitative methods to develop a complete understanding of each intervention. Quantitative data in the form of both process measures, such as case manager contacts, and outcome measures, such as hospital use, were reported and analyzed. Qualitative information was collected through interviews and the development of logic models to document the flow of intervention activities and how they were intended to affect outcomes. The logic models helped us to understand the underlying reasons for the success or lack thereof of each intervention. The analysis provides useful information on several fronts. First, qualitative data provided valuable information about implementation. Second, process measures helped determine whether implementation occurred as anticipated. Third, outcome measures indicated the potential for favorable results later, possibly suggesting further study. Finally, the evaluation of qualitative and quantitative data in combination helped us assess the potential promise of each intervention and identify common themes and challenges across all interventions.

Understanding a collaborative effort to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health care: contributions from social network analysis.

Quality improvement collaboratives have become a common strategy for improving health care. This paper uses social network analysis to study the relationships among organizations participating in a large scale public-private collaboration among major health plans to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health care in the United States. Pre-existing ties, the collaborative process, participants' perceived contributions, and the overall organizational standing of participants were examined. Findings suggest that sponsors and support organizations, along with a few of the health plans, form the core of this network and act as the "glue" that holds the collaboration together. Most health plans (and one or two support organizations) are in the periphery. While health plans do not interact much with one another, their interactions with the core organizations provided a way of helping achieve health plans' disparities goals. The findings illustrate the role sponsors can play in encouraging organizations to voluntarily work together to achieve social ends while also highlighting the challenges.

Moving research into practice: lessons from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's IDSRN program.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Integrated Delivery Systems Research Network (IDSRN) program was established to foster public-private collaboration between health services researchers and health care delivery systems. Its broad goal was to link researchers and delivery systems to encourage implementation of research into practice. We evaluated the program to address two primary questions: 1) How successful was IDSRN in generating research findings that could be applied in practice? and 2) What factors facilitate or impede such success? METHODS: We conducted in-person and telephone interviews with AHRQ staff and nine IDSRN partner organizations and their collaborators, reviewed program documents, analyzed projects funded through the program, and developed case studies of four IDSRN projects judged promising in supporting research implementation. RESULTS: Participants reported that the IDSRN structure was valuable in creating closer ties between researchers and participating health systems. Of the 50 completed projects studied, 30 had an operational effect or use. Some kinds of projects were more successful than others in influencing operations. If certain conditions were met, a variety of partnership models successfully supported implementation. An internal champion was necessary for partnerships involving researchers based outside the delivery system. Case studies identified several factors important to success: responsiveness of project work to delivery system needs, ongoing funding to support multiple project phases, and development of applied products or tools that helped users see their operational relevance. Factors limiting success included limited project funding, competing demands on potential research users, and failure to reach the appropriate audience. CONCLUSION: Forging stronger partnerships between researchers and delivery systems has the potential to make research more relevant to users, but these benefits require clear goals and appropriate targeting of resources. Trade-offs are inevitable. The health services research community can best consider such trade-offs and set priorities if there is more dialogue to identify areas and approaches where such partnerships may have the most promise. Though it has unique features, the IDSRN experience is relevant to research implementation in diverse settings.

Do determinants of medicare supplemental coverage choice vary by income.

Using data from the Community Tracking Study Household Survey (1998-99), we estimate the relationship between Medigap premiums and senior Medicare beneficiaries' supplemental coverage decisions. All seniors are more likely to be enrolled in an HMO in markets with higher Medigap prices. Lower income seniors are particularly sensitive to Medigap premiums and are more likely to have no supplemental coverage when faced with higher Medigap premiums. As Medicare supplemental options evolve in response to the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, it is important to consider that lower income beneficiaries may respond to price changes and other factors differently than their higher income counterparts.

The struggle to provide community-based care to low-income people with serious mental illnesses.

This paper describes gaps in services for low-income people with serious mental illnesses as reported by mental health professionals and other observers in twelve U.S. communities. According to respondents, service gaps have grown in recent years--especially for uninsured people--as a result of state budget pressures and Medicaid cost containment policies. Growing service gaps contribute to the high prevalence of serious mental illness among the homeless and incarcerated populations, as well as crowding of emergency departments. Some states and communities are aggressively addressing these gaps, although funding for new programs remains scarce.

The community safety net and prescription drug access for low-income, uninsured people.

While the new Medicare drug benefit has helped alleviate concerns about prescription drug access for elderly and disabled Americans, many low-income, uninsured people under age 65 continue to rely on community safety nets to get needed medications. As the number of uninsured Americans increases, safety net providers are stretching limited resources to meet growing prescription drug needs, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2005 site visits to 12 nationally representative communities. Despite redoubled efforts--centered on obtaining discounted drugs and donated medications--to make affordable drugs available to needy patients, safety net providers and community advocates report that many low-income, uninsured people continue to face major barriers to obtaining prescription drugs.

Community approaches to providing care for the uninsured.

Faced with rising uninsurance rates and little response at the state or federal levels in recent years, communities have developed various strategies to provide care for uninsured people. This paper profiles local strategies in the Community Tracking Study sites, focusing on efforts that go beyond traditional safety-net access. Our findings suggest that more-recent community efforts--which tend to be privately sponsored--are relatively modest in scope compared with more-mature programs that enjoy public financing. Although local strategies can fill some holes, communities often do not have the resources necessary to fully address the problems of the uninsured on their own.

Who enrolls in community-based programs for the uninsured, and why do they stay?

Faced with growing numbers of uninsured people, many communities are developing local programs to provide coverage or improve access. Some might predict that only those with health problems would participate; however, little is known about who enrolls. This paper examines participation and retention in three different community programs aimed at low-income uninsured adults. In two of the three programs, the typical participant had no health problems. Improved access to preventive and routine physician care, and increased security about getting access to care should the need arise, appeared to be the primary benefits of both initial and continued enrollment.

Translating research to action: improving physician access in public insurance.

Policymakers continue to struggle with how to assure adequate access to physician services in public programs like Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program, or other public coverage programs. In this article, we synthesize available research on this topic and provide a framework that policymakers may find useful in identifying and measuring barriers to care access, determining where and why problems exist, and identifying how to intervene. Using our experience constructing the framework, we also consider what observations can be drawn from this experience for those interested in the challenge of moving the insights from research to practice.

Donated care programs: a stopgap measure or a long-run alternative to health insurance?

In the absence of broad federal health care reform, interest has grown in local solutions to the problem of providing health care to the uninsured. Community-based donated medical care models have emerged as one alternative. We examine the early experience of a donated care program in southern Maine called CarePartners. Although such programs are often viewed as a short-term solution for those temporarily without health insurance, we find that CarePartners served a different role for many individuals. While clearly a stopgap measure for some enrollees, CarePartners appears to be a longer-term means for getting access to care for most enrollees.

Who enrolls in a program for parents of publicly insured children?

Although interest in expanding SCHIP coverage to parents has grown over the past five years, few such expansions have actually been implemented. State governments and health plan administrators remain concerned that these expansions will attract only high-risk enrollees, resulting in costly premiums that require large subsidies. We examine characteristics of enrollees in an SCHIP-like expansion program in Alameda County, California. According to our survey data, the program did not experience unfavorable selection. Rather, it attracted a broad range of eligible adults. Enrollees were comparable to the overall low-income population in Alameda County in terms of age, health status, and various utilization measures.