Practice Transformation in the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative and Emergency Department Use.

To provide insight on how ambulatory care practices can reduce emergency department (ED) visits, we studied changes in Medicare ED visits for primary and specialty care practices in the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative. We compared practices that transformed more vs less during the 6-year period ending in 2021 (3,773 practices). Using data from a practice transformation assessment tool completed at multiple intervals, we found improvement in the transformation score was associated with reduced ED visits by 6% and 4% for primary and specialty care practices, respectively, 3 to 4 years after first assessment. Transformation in 5 of 8 domains contributed to reduced ED visits.

Predicting Fragmented Care: Beneficiary, Physician, Practice, and Market Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Understanding what drives fragmented ambulatory care (care spread across multiple providers without a dominant provider) can inform the design of future interventions to reduce unnecessary fragmentation. OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of beneficiaries, primary care physicians, primary care practice sites, and geographic markets that predict highly fragmented ambulatory care in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims data for beneficiaries attributed to primary care physicians and practices in 2018. We used hierarchical linear models with random intercepts and an extensive list of explanatory variables to predict the likelihood of high fragmentation. SUBJECTS: A total of 3,540,310 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries met the inclusion criteria, attributed to 26,344 primary care physicians in 9300 practice sites, and 788 geographic markets. MEASURES: We defined high care fragmentation as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index score above 0.85. RESULTS: Explanatory variables explained only 6% of the variation in highly fragmented care. Unobserved differences between primary care physicians, between practice sites, and between markets together accounted for 4%. Instead, 90% of the variation in high fragmentation was unobserved residual variance. We identified the characteristics of beneficiaries (age, reason for original Medicare entitlement, and dually eligible for Medicaid insurance), physicians (comprehensiveness of care), and practices (size, being part of a system/hospital) that had small associations with high fragmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in fragmentation was not explained by observed beneficiary, primary care provider, practice site, or market characteristics. Instead, the aggregate behavior of diverse health care providers beyond primary care, along with unmeasured patient preferences and behaviors, seem to be important predictors.

Communication Gaps Persist Between Primary Care and Specialist Physicians.

A survey conducted with data from 2008 found that physicians often do not communicate with each other at the time of referral or after consultation. Communication between physicians might have improved since then, with the dissemination of electronic health records (EHRs), but this is not known. We used 2019 survey data to measure primary care physicians' perceptions of communication at the time of referral and after consultation. We found that large gaps in communication persist. The similarity between these survey results suggests that despite the dissemination of EHRs, physicians still do not consistently communicate with each other about the patients they share.

Primary care redesign and care fragmentation among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To determine associations between a large-scale primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Initiative-and the extent of continuity or fragmentation of ambulatory care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first 3 years of CPC+. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences framework with a comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC+ practices at baseline (eg, practice size, demographics, Medicare spending). Regressions controlled for clustering, baseline patient characteristics, and practice fixed effects. Our study covered January 2016 through December 2019 and included 1,085,707 beneficiaries attributed to 2883 CPC+ practices and 2,274,068 beneficiaries attributed to 6912 comparison practices. METHODS: We focused on beneficiaries with highly fragmented care at baseline because they may have changed the most in response to CPC+. Key outcome measures were the numbers of ambulatory visits and unique practitioners, reported by specialty category; the percentage of visits with the usual provider of care (measuring continuity); and the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index (rBBI; measuring fragmentation). RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries with high fragmentation (rBBI ≥ 0.85) at baseline (40% of the sample) had a mean of 13 ambulatory visits across 7 practitioners; the most frequent provider of care accounted for only 28% of visits. By contrast, the remaining beneficiaries had a mean of 10 visits across 4 practitioners, with the most frequent provider accounting for 54% of visits. There were no differences in continuity or fragmentation of care for CPC+ vs comparison beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: We find no evidence that CPC+ increased continuity or decreased fragmentation of care.

Pathways to reduced emergency department and urgent care center use: Lessons from the comprehensive primary care initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a large-scale, multi-payer primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative-on outpatient emergency department (ED) and urgent care center (UCC) use and to identify the types of visits that drive the overall trends observed. DATA SOURCES: Medicare claims data capturing characteristics and outcomes of 565 674 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries attributed to 497 CPC practices and 1 165 284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices. STUDY DESIGN: We used an adjusted difference-in-differences framework to test the association between CPC and beneficiaries' ED and UCC use from October 2012 through December 2016. Regression models controlled for baseline practice and patient characteristics and practice-level clustering of standard errors. Our key outcomes were all-cause and primary care substitutable (PC substitutable) outpatient ED and UCC visits, and potentially primary care preventable (PPC preventable) ED visits, categorized by the New York University Emergency Department Algorithm. We used a propensity score-matched comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC practices before CPC on multiple dimensions. Both groups of practices had similar growth in ED and UCC visits in the two-year period before CPC. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Comprehensive Primary Care practices had 2% (P = .06) lower growth in all-cause ED visits than comparison practices. They had 3% (P = .02) lower growth in PC substitutable ED visits, driven by lower growth in weekday PC substitutable visits (4%, P = .002). There was 3% (P = .04) lower growth in PPC preventable ED visits with no weekday/nonweekday differential. As expected, our falsification test showed no difference in ED visits for injuries. UCC visits had 9% lower growth for both all-cause (P = .08) and PC substitutable visits (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that greater access to the practice and more effective primary care both contributed to the lower growth in ED and UCC visits during the initiative.

Uses and Limitations of Claims-based Performance Feedback Reports: Lessons From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Performance feedback is central to data-driven models of quality improvement, but the use of claims-based data for feedback has received little attention. PURPOSE: To examine the challenges, uses, and limitations of quarterly Medicare claims-based performance feedback reports generated for practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative from 2012 to 2015. METHODS: Mixed methods study of nearly 500 CPC practices in seven regions, combining pilot testing; systematic monitoring; surveys; in-depth interviews; user feedback; and input from data feedback team. RESULTS: Designing reports required addressing issues about timing, data completeness and reliability, variations in patient risk across practices, and use of benchmarks and metrics understandable to users. Practices' ability to use reports constructively depended on their experience, analytic resources, expectations, and perceptions about the role of primary care in improving reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Generating claims-based feedback reports that support practices' quality improvement efforts requires a significant investment of analytic expertise, time, resources, continuous improvement, and technical assistance. IMPLICATIONS: Claims-based performance feedback can provide insight into patterns of patients' care across provider settings and opportunities for improvement, but practices need data from other sources to manage patients in real time or assess the short-term effects of specific changes in care delivery.

Child care in infancy and cognitive performance until middle childhood in the millennium cohort study.

This study used a British cohort (n = âˆ¼13,000) to investigate the association between child care during infancy and later cognition while controlling for social selection and missing data. It was found that attending child care (informal or center based) at 9 months was positively associated with cognitive outcomes at age 3 years, but only for children of mothers with low education. These effects did not persist to ages 5 or 7 years. Early center-based care was associated with better cognitive outcomes than informal care at ages 3 and 5 years, but not at 7 years. Effect sizes were larger among children whose mother had low education. Propensity score matching and multiple imputation revealed significant findings undetected using regression and complete-case approaches.