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.

Hospital outpatient department billing is a poor indicator of primary care practice integration with hospital systems.

OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of Medicare claims in measuring vertical integration. We assess the accuracy of a commonly used measure of integration, primary care physician (PCP) practices billing Medicare as a hospital outpatient department (HOPD) in claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims, IQVIA, and CPC+ practice surveys for this study. STUDY DESIGN: We compare measures of integration from Medicare claims to self-reported indicators of integration from IQVIA and a survey of CPC+ participating practice sites. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We measure integration by using site-of-service billing in the 100% sample of Medicare Carrier claims from 2017-2020. In the IQVIA SK&A (2017-2018), OneKey (2019-2020), and practice survey data (2017-2019), we use self-reported responses to measure integration. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that currently most PCP practices sites that report themselves as being integrated with a health system do not bill as an HOPD. In 2017, 11% of CPC+ practices were identified as being vertically integrated in claims, while the equivalent numbers in SK&A and surveys were 52% and 54% integration, respectively. A t-test found that both datasets significantly differed from claims (Survey: 41.3%-45.1%; SK&A: 45.3%-51.1%); this gap persists in 2018-2019. CONCLUSION: Measuring physician-hospital vertical integration accurately is integral to determining consolidation. The overwhelming majority of PCP practice sites not billing as an HOPD may reflect Medicare regulatory changes that have reduced the financial incentives for doing so. These findings have implications for researchers that study the growth in PCP-hospital integration in health care markets.

Incorporating health IT into primary care transformation.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the role of health information technology (IT) vendors and health IT functionality in supporting advanced primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We synthesized multiple rounds of surveys and interviews (2017-2022) from a mixed-methods evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+), a multipayer model developed by CMS. CPC+ was the first federal advanced primary care reform effort that formalized health IT vendors' roles in supporting health IT implementation and specified detailed health IT requirements for practices. METHODS: We conducted content analysis to identify cross-cutting themes related to health IT for both practices and vendors, comparing similarities and differences across participants and (when possible) over time. RESULTS: Vendors and practices reported advances in registries and dashboards for improved information management within the practice as well as strengthened relationships between vendors and practices that supported health IT implementation. However, CPC+ practices noted several gaps or challenges using existing functionalities, and both vendors and practices reported broader challenges for more transformative health IT change, particularly the lack of interoperable health information exchange needed to support care management and care coordination. Key factors constraining vendors' investment in further advances included long product development schedules, making it difficult to respond to rapidly evolving model requirements. Vendors also shared that CPC+ practices represented a small fraction of their client base, so investing in developing new functionality was not strategic unless it was more broadly relevant outside CPC+. CONCLUSIONS: Continued collaboration among health IT vendors, practices, policy makers, and payers could support continued technological improvements, particularly related to information exchange and communication. Aligning requirements more closely with other federal and private models could also help mitigate the risk for vendors.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Model and Health Care Spending, Service Use, and Quality.

Importance: Implemented in 18 regions, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) was the largest US primary care delivery model ever tested. Understanding its association with health outcomes is critical in designing future transformation models. Objective: To test whether CPC+ was associated with lower health care spending and utilization and improved quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences regression models compared changes in outcomes between the year before CPC+ and 5 intervention years for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to CPC+ and comparison practices. Participants included 1373 track 1 (1 549 585 beneficiaries) and 1515 track 2 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) primary care practices that applied to start CPC+ in 2017 and met minimum care delivery and other eligibility requirements. Comparison groups included 5243 track 1 (5 347 499 beneficiaries) and 3783 track 2 (4 507 499 beneficiaries) practices, matched, and weighted to have similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as CPC+ practices. Interventions: Two-track design involving enhanced (higher for track 2) and alternative payments (track 2 only), care delivery requirements (greater for track 2), data feedback, learning, and health information technology support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was annualized Medicare Part A and B expenditures per beneficiary per month (PBPM). Secondary outcomes included expenditure categories, utilization (eg, hospitalizations), and claims-based quality-of-care process and outcome measures (eg, recommended tests for patients with diabetes and unplanned readmissions). Results: Among the CPC+ patients, 5% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 87% were White, and 5% were of other races (including Asian/Other Pacific Islander and American Indian); 85% of CPC+ patients were older than 65 years and 58% were female. CPC+ was associated with no discernible changes in the total expenditures (track 1: $1.1 PBPM [90% CI, -$4.3 to $6.6], P = .74; track 2: $1.3 [90% CI, -$5 to $7.7], P = .73), and with increases in expenditures including enhanced payments (track 1: $13 [90% CI, $7 to $18], P < .001; track 2: $24 [90% CI, $18 to $31], P < .001). Among secondary outcomes, CPC+ was associated with decreases in emergency department visits starting in year 1, and in acute hospitalizations and acute inpatient expenditures in later years. Associations were more favorable for practices also participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and independent practices. CPC+ was not associated with meaningful changes in claims-based quality-of-care measures. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the timing of the associations of CPC+ with reduced utilization and acute inpatient expenditures was consistent with the theory of change and early focus on episodic care management of CPC+, CPC+ was not associated with a reduction in total expenditures over 5 years. Positive interaction between CPC+ and the Shared Savings Program suggests transformation models might be more successful when provider cost-reduction incentives are aligned across specialties. Further adaptations and testing of primary care transformation models, as well as consideration of the larger context in which they operate, are needed.