Impact of the Oncology Care Model on Use of Supportive Care Medications During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based alternative payment model for cancer care that seeks to reduce Medicare spending while maintaining care quality. We evaluated the impact of OCM on appropriate use of supportive care medications during cancer treatment. METHODS: We evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims (2013-2019). We assessed denosumab use for beneficiaries with bone metastases from breast, lung, or prostate cancer; prophylactic WBC growth factor use for beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer; and prophylactic use of neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for any cancer type. Analyses used a difference-in-difference approach. RESULTS: After its launch in 2016, OCM led to a relative reduction in the use of denosumab for beneficiaries with bone metastases receiving bone-modifying medications (eg, 5.0 percentage point relative reduction in breast cancer episodes [90% CI, -7.1 to -2.8]). There was no OCM impact on use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during chemotherapy with high or low risk for febrile neutropenia. Among beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy with intermediate febrile neutropenia risk, OCM led to a 7.6 percentage point reduction in the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer episodes (90% CI, -12.6 to -2.7); there was no OCM impact in lung or colorectal cancer episodes. Among beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists (eg, 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high emetic risk chemotherapy [90% CI, -9.0 to -3.1]). CONCLUSION: OCM led to the reduced use of some high-cost supportive care medications, suggesting more value-conscious care.

Association of the Oncology Care Model With Value-Based Changes in Use of Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation utilization for breast cancer and metastatic bone disease varies in modality, fractionation, and cost, despite evidence demonstrating equal effectiveness and consensus recommendations such as Choosing Wisely that advocate for higher value care. We assessed whether the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model for practices providing chemotherapy to patients with cancer, affected the overall use and value of radiation therapy in terms of Choosing Wisely recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data to identify beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare who initiated chemotherapy episodes at OCM and propensity-matched comparison practices. Difference-in-difference (DID) analyses evaluated the effect of OCM on overall use of postoperative radiation for breast cancer, use of intensity modulated radiation therapy and hypofractionation for breast cancer, and fractionation patterns for treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast or prostate cancer. We performed additional analyses stratified by the presence or absence of a radiation oncologist in the practice. RESULTS: Among 27,859 postoperative breast cancer episodes, OCM had no effect on overall use of radiation therapy after breast surgery (DID percentage point difference = 0.4%; 90% confidence interval [CI], -1.7%, 2.4%) or on use of intensity modulated radiation therapy in this setting (DID = -0.6; 90% CI, -3.1, 2.0). Among 19,366 metastatic bone disease episodes, OCM had no effect on fractionation patterns for palliation of bone metastases (DID for ≤10 fractions = -1.1%; 90% CI, -2.6%, 0.4% and DID for single fraction = -0.2%; 90% CI, -1.9%, 1.6%). Results were similar for practices with and without a radiation oncologist. We did not evaluate the effect of OCM on hypofractionated radiation after breast-conserving surgery owing to evidence of differential baseline trends. CONCLUSIONS: OCM had no effect on use of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer or on fractionation patterns for metastatic bone disease. Future payment models directly focused on radiation oncology providers may be better poised to improve the value of radiation oncology care.

The Oncology Care Model and Adherence to Oral Cancer Drugs: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to oral cancer drugs is suboptimal. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) offers oncology practices financial incentives to improve the value of cancer care. We assessed the impact of OCM on adherence to oral cancer therapy for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), prostate cancer, and breast cancer. METHODS: Using 2014-2019 Medicare data, we studied chemotherapy episodes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries prescribed tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for CML, antiandrogens (ie, enzalutamide, abiraterone) for prostate cancer, or hormonal therapies for breast cancer in OCM-participating and propensity-matched comparison practices. We measured adherence as the proportion of days covered and used difference-in-difference (DID) models to detect changes in adherence over time, adjusting for patient, practice, and market-level characteristics. RESULTS: There was no overall impact of OCM on improved adherence to TKIs for CML (DID = -0.3%, 90% confidence interval [CI] = -1.2% to 0.6%), antiandrogens for prostate cancer (DID = 0.4%, 90% CI = -0.3% to 1.2%), or hormonal therapy for breast cancer (DID = 0.0%, 90% CI = -0.2% to 0.2%). Among episodes for Black beneficiaries in OCM practices, for whom adherence was lower than for White beneficiaries at baseline, we observed small improvements in adherence to high cost TKIs (DID = 3.0%, 90% CI = 0.2% to 5.8%) and antiandrogens (DID = 2.2%, 90% CI = 0.2% to 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: OCM did not impact adherence to oral cancer therapies for Medicare beneficiaries with CML, prostate cancer, or breast cancer overall but modestly improved adherence to high-cost TKIs and antiandrogens for Black beneficiaries, who had somewhat lower adherence than White beneficiaries at baseline. Patient navigation and financial counseling are potential mechanisms for improvement among Black beneficiaries.

Bundled Payment Episodes Initiated by Physician Group Practices: Medicare Beneficiary Perceptions of Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative incentivizes participating providers to reduce total Medicare payments for an episode of care. However, there are concerns that reducing payments could reduce quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of BPCI with patient-reported functional status and care experiences. DESIGN: We surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes attributed to participating physician group practices, and matched comparison beneficiaries, after hospitalization for one of the 18 highest volume clinical episodes. The sample included beneficiaries discharged from the hospital from February 2017 through September 2017. Beneficiaries were surveyed approximately 90 days after their hospital discharge. We estimated risk-adjusted differences between the BPCI and comparison groups, pooled across all 18 clinical episodes and separately for the five largest clinical episodes. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes (n=16,898, response rate=44.5%) and comparison beneficiaries hospitalized for similar conditions selected using coarsened exact matching (n=14,652, response rate=46.2%). MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported functional status, care experiences, and overall satisfaction with recovery. KEY RESULTS: Overall, we did not find differences between the BPCI and comparison respondents across seven measures of change in functional status or overall satisfaction with recovery. Both BPCI and comparison respondents reported generally positive care experiences, but BPCI respondents were less likely to report positive care experience for 3 of 8 measures (discharged at the right time, -1.2 percentage points (pp); appropriate level of care, -1.8 pp; preferences for post-discharge care taken into account, -0.9 pp; p<0.05 for all three measures). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of respondents with favorable care experiences was smaller for BPCI than comparison respondents. However, we did not detect differences in self-reported change in functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge, indicating that differences in care experiences did not affect functional recovery.

Association of Participation in the Oncology Care Model With Medicare Payments, Utilization, Care Delivery, and Quality Outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: In 2016, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services initiated the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the OCM with changes in Medicare spending, utilization, quality, and patient experience during the OCM's first 3 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Exploratory difference-in-differences study comparing care during 6-month chemotherapy episodes in OCM participating practices and propensity-matched comparison practices initiated before (January 2014 through June 2015) and after (July 2016 through December 2018) the start of the OCM. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer treated at these practices through June 2019. EXPOSURES: OCM participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode payments (Medicare spending for Parts A, B, and D, not including monthly payments for enhanced oncology services); utilization and payments for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, chemotherapy, supportive care, and imaging; quality (chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations and ED visits, timely chemotherapy, end-of-life care, and survival); and patient experiences. RESULTS: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, 483 319 beneficiaries (mean age, 73.0 [SD, 8.7] years; 60.1% women; 987 332 episodes) were treated at 201 OCM participating practices, and 557 354 beneficiaries (mean age, 72.9 [SD, 9.0] years; 57.4% women; 1 122 597 episodes) were treated at 534 comparison practices. From the baseline period, total episode payments increased from $28 681 for OCM episodes and $28 421 for comparison episodes to $33 211 for OCM episodes and $33 249 for comparison episodes during the intervention period (difference in differences, -$297; 90% CI, -$504 to -$91), less than the mean $704 Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments. Relative decreases in total episode payments were primarily for Part B nonchemotherapy drug payments (difference in differences, -$145; 90% CI, -$218 to -$72), especially supportive care drugs (difference in differences, -$150; 90% CI, -$216 to -$84). The OCM was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in total episode payments among higher-risk episodes (difference in differences, -$503; 90% CI, -$802 to -$204) and statistically significant relative increases in total episode payments among lower-risk episodes (difference in differences, $151; 90% CI, $39-$264). The OCM was not significantly associated with differences in hospitalizations, ED visits, or survival. Of 22 measures of utilization, 10 measures of quality, and 7 measures of care experiences, only 5 were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis, the OCM was significantly associated with modest payment reductions during 6-month episodes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for cancer in the first 3 years of the OCM that did not offset the monthly payments for enhanced oncology services. There were no statistically significant differences for most utilization, quality, and patient experience outcomes.

Patient-reported Outcomes Among Vulnerable Populations in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative tested whether episode-based payment models could reduce Medicare payments without harming quality. Among patients with vulnerabilities, BPCI appeared to effectively reduce payments while maintaining the quality of care. However, these findings could overlook potential adverse patient-reported outcomes in this population. RESEARCH DESIGN: We surveyed beneficiaries with 4 characteristics (Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility; dementia; recent institutional care; or racial/ethnic minority) treated at BPCI-participating or comparison hospitals for congestive heart failure, sepsis, pneumonia, or major joint replacement of the lower extremity. We estimated risk-adjusted differences in patient-reported outcomes between BPCI and comparison respondents, stratified by clinical episode and vulnerable characteristic. MEASURES: Patient care experiences during episodes of care and patient-reported functional outcomes assessed roughly 90 days after hospitalization. RESULTS: We observed no differences in self-reported functional improvement between BPCI and comparison respondents with vulnerable characteristics. Patient-reported care experience was similar between BPCI and comparison respondents in 11 of 15 subgroups of clinical episode and vulnerability. BPCI respondents with congestive heart failure, sepsis, and pneumonia were less likely to indicate positive care experiences than comparison respondents for at least 1 subgroup with vulnerabilities. CONCLUSIONS: As implemented by hospitals, BPCI Model 2 was not associated with adverse effects on patient-reported functional status among beneficiaries who may be vulnerable to reductions in care. Hospitals participating in heart failure, sepsis or pneumonia bundled payment episodes should focus on patient care experience while implementing changes in care delivery.

How Do Claims-Based Measures of End-of-Life Care Compare to Family Ratings of Care Quality?

OBJECTIVES: Assess whether frequently-used claims-based end-of-life (EOL) measures are associated with higher ratings of care quality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Deceased fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who underwent chemotherapy during July 2016 to January 2017 and died within 12 months and their caregiver respondents to an after-death survey (n = 2,559). MEASUREMENTS: We examined claims-based measures of EOL care: chemotherapy 14 days or more before death; inpatient admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) use, and emergency department (ED) visits 30 days or more before death; hospice election and the timing of election before death. Primary outcomes are family ratings of "excellent" care in the last month of life and reports that hospice care began "at the right time." Associations were assessed with logistic regression, adjusted by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Family rated EOL care as excellent less often, if within 30 days before death the cancer patient had inpatient admissions (1 hospitalization = 41.5% vs 51.5% none, adjusted difference -10.1 percentage points), ICU use (38.6% for any ICU use vs 47.4% none; adjusted difference -8.8 percentage points), ED visits (41.0% 1 visit vs 51.6% no visits; adjusted difference -10.6 percentage points), or elected hospice within 7 days before death. Among hospice enrollees, family more often reported that hospice began at the right time if it started at least 7 days before death (hospice 1-2 days before death 60.2% vs hospice 7-13 days 74.9%; adjusted difference +14.7 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: Claims-based measures of EOL care for cancer patients that reflect avoidance of hospital-based care and earlier hospice enrollment are associated with higher ratings of care quality by bereaved family members.

Early Findings From the Oncology Care Model Evaluation.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that is structured around 6-month chemotherapy treatment episodes. This report describes the CMS-sponsored OCM evaluation and summarizes early evaluation findings. METHODS: The OCM evaluation examines health care spending and use, quality of care, and patient experience during chemotherapy treatment episodes. Because OCM participation is voluntary, the evaluation compares participating physician practices with a propensity-matched group of nonparticipating practices by using a difference-in-differences approach. This report examines 6-month episodes initiated during the first OCM performance period (July 1, 2016, through January 1, 2017). RESULTS: During the first OCM performance period, there was no statistically significant impact of OCM on total episode payments. There were small declines in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (7 per 1,000 episodes) and emergency department visits (15 per 1,000 episodes); there was no statistically significant impact on hospitalizations or 30-day readmissions. Analyses of care quality and end-of-life care showed statistically significant impacts of OCM on the proportion of patients with inpatient hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (1.5% absolute decrease) and ICU admissions in the last 30 days of life (2.1% decrease). There was no significant OCM impact on measures of hospice use. CONCLUSION: Early findings from the OCM evaluation demonstrate modest program-related impacts on some acute care services and no change in total episode payments. Early findings may not reflect practice redesign efforts that were phased in after the beginning of OCM.

Association of Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative with patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative affected patient-reported measures of quality. DATA SOURCES: Surveys of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals participating in BPCI Model 2 and comparison hospitals between October 2014 and June 2017. Variables from Medicare administrative data and the Provider of Services file were used for sampling and risk adjustment. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated risk-adjusted differences in patient-reported measures of care experience and changes in functional status, for beneficiaries treated by BPCI and comparison hospitals. DATA COLLECTION: We selected a stratified random sample of BPCI and matched comparison beneficiaries. We fielded nine waves of surveys using a mail and phone protocol, yielding 29 193 BPCI and 29 913 comparison respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Most BPCI and comparison survey respondents reported a positive care experience and high satisfaction. BPCI respondents were slightly less likely than comparison respondents to report positive care experience or high satisfaction. Despite these differences in care experience, there was no difference between BPCI and comparison respondents in self-reported functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reduce concerns that BPCI may have unintentionally harmed patient health but suggest room for improvement in patient care experience.

Tailored Strategies to Enhance Survey Response among Proxies of Deceased Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To enhance proxy survey responses for deceased cancer patients. DATA SOURCES: Two waves of surveys about care experiences of cancer chemotherapy patients (used for a value-based purchasing initiative), collected November 2016 through March 2017. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys were mailed to deceased patients (for proxy response) in the untailored first survey wave, and using a tailored strategy in the second wave. We compared proxy responses for deceased patients with and without the tailored approach. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A tailored survey approach improved the proxy response rate from 17.6 percent to 39.0 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Simple tailoring strategies can significantly enhance proxy response rates when surveying patients in a high mortality population. However, we were unable to address the impact of higher proxy response rates on response bias since we surveyed different patients in each wave.

The Impact of Enhanced Critical Care Training and 24/7 (Tele-ICU) Support on Medicare Spending and Postdischarge Utilization Patterns.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of implementing a tele-ICU and a critical care residency training program for advanced practice providers on service utilization and total Medicare episode spending. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTINGS: Medicare claims data for fee-for-service beneficiaries at 12 large, inpatient hospitals in the Atlanta Hospital Referral Region. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-differences design where changes in spending and utilization for Medicare beneficiaries eligible for treatment in participating ICUs was compared to changes in a comparison group of clinically similar beneficiaries treated at similar hospitals' ICUs in the same hospital referral region. EXTRACTION METHODS: Using Medicare claims data from January 2010 through June 2015, we defined measures of Medicare episode spending during the ICU stay and subsequent 60 days after discharge, and utilization measures within 30 and 60 days after discharge. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Implementation of the advanced practice provider residency program and tele-ICU was associated with a significant reduction in average Medicare spending per episode, primarily driven by reduced readmissions within 60 days and substitution of home health care for institutional postacute care. CONCLUSIONS: Innovations in workforce training and technology specific to the ICU may be useful in addressing the shortage of intensivist physicians, yielding benefits to patients and payers.

Enhancing patient and family engagement through Meaningful Use Stage 3: opportunities and barriers to implementation.

OBJECTIVES: The proposed Patient and Family Engagement objectives for Meaningful Use Stage 3 (MU3) seek to provide patients with increased access to, and control over, the content and dissemination of their electronic health record (EHR) information. STUDY DESIGN: Implementation study conducted from 2013-2014. METHODS: In this study, 2 leading US health systems attempted to implement 4 draft MU3 objectives within their current EHR system. Senior staff provided qualitative feedback on their implementation experience; researchers used content analysis to identify major themes and implementation challenges. RESULTS: We found that the draft objectives would support the MU3 Patient and Family Engagement goals, but that all objectives would benefit from the following: changes in policy language to promote flexibility in implementation; training and workflow adaptions, as well as patient education, by healthcare organizations; and new EHR functionalities. CONCLUSIONS: In the short term, a semi-automated approach is likely necessary to support MU3 objective implementation. These challenges are not unique to MU3 and underscore gaps in the current health information infrastructure.

Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes.

IMPORTANCE: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary initiative of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test the effect of holding an entity accountable for all services provided during an episode of care on episode payments and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether BPCI was associated with a greater reduction in Medicare payments without loss of quality of care for lower extremity joint (primarily hip and knee) replacement episodes initiated in BPCI-participating hospitals that are accountable for total episode payments (for the hospitalization and Medicare-covered services during the 90 days after discharge). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A difference-in-differences approach estimated the differential change in outcomes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital between the baseline (October 2011 through September 2012) and intervention (October 2013 through June 2015) periods and beneficiaries with the same surgical procedure at matched comparison hospitals. EXPOSURE: Lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Standardized Medicare-allowed payments (Medicare payments), utilization, and quality (unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, and mortality) during hospitalization and the 90-day postdischarge period. RESULTS: There were 29 441 lower extremity joint replacement episodes in the baseline period and 31 700 in the intervention period (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.89] years; 65.2% women) at 176 BPCI-participating hospitals, compared with 29 440 episodes in the baseline period (768 hospitals) and 31 696 episodes in the intervention period (841 hospitals) (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.92] years; 64.9% women) at matched comparison hospitals. The BPCI mean Medicare episode payments were $30 551 (95% CI, $30 201 to $30 901) in the baseline period and declined by $3286 to $27 265 (95% CI, $26 838 to $27 692) in the intervention period. The comparison mean Medicare episode payments were $30 057 (95% CI, $29 765 to $30 350) in the baseline period and declined by $2119 to $27 938 (95% CI, $27 639 to $28 237). The mean Medicare episode payments declined by an estimated $1166 more (95% CI, -$1634 to -$699; P < .001) for BPCI episodes than for comparison episodes, primarily due to reduced use of institutional postacute care. There were no statistical differences in the claims-based quality measures, which included 30-day unplanned readmissions (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.4%), 90-day unplanned readmissions (-0.4%; 95% CI, -1.1% to 0.3%), 30-day emergency department visits (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 0.5%), 90-day emergency department visits (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 1.0%), 30-day postdischarge mortality (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.2%), and 90-day postdischarge mortality (-0.0%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 21 months of the BPCI initiative, Medicare payments declined more for lower extremity joint replacement episodes provided in BPCI-participating hospitals than for those provided in comparison hospitals, without a significant change in quality outcomes. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term follow-up as well as patterns for other types of clinical care.

Survey of state health information exchanges regarding inclusion of Continuity of Care Documents for long-term post-acute care (LTPAC) patient assessment.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to measure awareness and interest among state health information exchanges (HIEs) in a tool that translates long-term post-acute care (LTPAC) patient assessment information to a Continuity of Care Document (CCD) format for sharing; whether any state HIEs currently integrate patient information from LTPAC providers; and the anticipated benefits and barriers to using such a tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study consisted of an online survey of state HIEs. RESULTS: Responses were received from representatives of 29 of the 51 HIEs (57 percent). Eleven of the 29 respondents (38 percent) were aware of the LTPAC-to-CCD translation tool, and 24 (83 percent of respondents) were interested in it or felt LTPAC providers in their state would be interested. Twenty-one of the 24 interested respondents (88 percent) indicated a desire for more information about this technology. DISCUSSION: Skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies receive no incentives for adoption of electronic health record systems and are not commonly included in HIEs. These organizations do, however collect extensive structured data about their patients (Minimum Data Set for nursing facilities, Outcome and Assessment Information Set for home health agencies) and transmit the data electronically to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). A tool is now available that will intercept the transmissions to CMS, transform content extracted from patient assessments into CCDs, and send the CCDs to a designated HIE. CONCLUSION: Responding HIEs reported almost no experience exchanging patient assessment information from LTPAC providers. Anticipated benefits include safer care transitions; anticipated barriers include information technology constraints in LTPAC settings.

Challenges to care coordination posed by the use of multiple health IT applications.

Coordinating care for hospitalized patients requires the use of multiple sources of information. Using a macroergonomic framework (i.e. the work system model), we conducted interviews and observations of care managers involved in care coordination across transitions of care. When information is distributed across multiple health IT applications, care managers experience a range of challenges, including organizational barriers, technology design problems, skills and knowledge issues, and task performance demands (i.e. issues related to individual information processing and management and sharing of information). These challenges can be used as a checklist to evaluate the proposed IT infrastructure that will allow the integration of multiple health IT applications and, therefore, support coordination across transitions of care.

Understanding the landscape of MTM programs for Medicare. Part D: Results from a study for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the features of medication therapy management (MTM) programs, including eligibility criteria, enrollment, services, and reimbursement, and to describe the criteria used to evaluate MTM programs and assess the evidence of relevance to Medicare. DESIGN: Descriptive, exploratory, nonexperimental study. SETTING: United States between July 2007 and June 2008. PARTICIPANTS: 60 key informants from 46 different organizations and case studies with 28 representatives from four MTM programs. INTERVENTION: Literature review, key informant interviews, and evaluation of case studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MTM program features and evidence of effectiveness. RESULTS: MTM programs used a variety of practice models. Medicare MTM programs used different eligibility criteria than MTM programs sponsored by Medicaid or other payers. MTM programs that required patients to opt-in had less success in enrolling participants than those using opt-out. Most MTM programs conducted annual medication reviews. Most non-Medicare MTM programs provided face-to-face interventions, whereas Medicare MTM programs relied more on telephone or mail; no research tested the effectiveness of different modes. Almost all MTM programs used pharmacists to provide services. Little research on Medicare MTM programs was available. Costs were commonly measured in the MTM literature, although results were inconsistent. A few studies demonstrated significant improvements in intermediate outcomes (e.g., low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), while less studies demonstrated an impact on serious sequelae (e.g., emergency department visits). CONCLUSION: Medicare MTM programs were still evolving when this study was conducted, and we found limited evidence to determine which beneficiaries would benefit most from MTM, which features achieved the desired outcomes, and which outcomes should be measured to compare MTM program performance.