The patient-centered medical home: an evaluation of a single private payer demonstration in New Jersey.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has increasingly been looked to by policy makers, health care providers, and private insurers as a potential solution to the fragmented and inefficient US health care system. Whether the PCMH achieves these goals is not known. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a PCMH demonstration project implemented in 2011 in 8 New Jersey primary care practices covering over 10,000 plan members. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conduct difference-in-differences analysis, comparing changes in outcomes at 8 medical home practices to a group of 24 comparison practices before (2010) and after (2011) the medical home implementation occurred. We use Mahalanobis distance matching to select the 24 comparison practices, matching on practice characteristics. We focus on the effect of the PCMH pilot on 3 groups of outcomes: health care utilization, costs, and quality. RESULTS: The study cohort included 35,059 members during the study period 2010-2011-10,004 in the 8 PCMH practices and 25,055 in the 24 comparison practices. Health care utilization and costs did not significantly change with adoption of the PCMH model. In testing for changes in Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures, rates of mammography increased in PCMH practices after PCMH implementation compared to non-PCMH practices, by 2.2 percentage points on a base of 69.5% (P<0.001). Rates of nephropathy screening also increased (by 6.6 percentage points on a base of 51.8%; P=0.05). Changes in 7 other HEDIS quality measures following PCMH implementation were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We find little evidence of reductions in health care utilization or cost and minimal evidence of improvements in quality of care. Ongoing work is needed to understand why this model of care seems to work in some cases and not others and to evaluate how to improve the medical home.

The impact of goal cues on everyday action performance in dementia.

Everyday action performance is impaired as a consequence of dementia. Omissions (i.e., not performing task steps) are a frequent source of error in everyday tasks among dementia patients. External cues or notes are often suggested to improve everyday functioning and might specifically address omission errors; however, the efficacy of such strategies has not been evaluated. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of goal cues (i.e., reminders of everyday task objectives) for improving dementia patients' everyday action performance. Forty-four participants with mild to moderate dementia were administered the Naturalistic Action Test (NAT), a performance-based test that includes three everyday tasks. After participants indicated that they had completed each task, they were presented with a cue card restating the task goals. Videotapes were used to code task performance as well as responses to the cues. Most participants checked their work and showed significant improvement in task accomplishment/omission errors, but not commission errors, after the cues. However, effect sizes for the differences were small, and the proportion of cases in the impaired range did not differ before versus after the cues. Therefore, although statistically significant, we concluded that the goal cues did not meaningfully or clinically improve everyday functioning.

Coffee with jelly or unbuttered toast: commissions and omissions are dissociable aspects of everyday action impairment in Alzheimer's disease.

Relative to our understanding of the memory and language deficits associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), little is known about problems with everyday action performance (i.e., meal preparation, grooming). The resource theory proposes that everyday action problems are best explained by a unitary deficit in general cognitive resources. However, recent research suggests that omission and commission errors may reflect dissociable aspects of action impairment, with only omissions associated with resource limitations. This study examined everyday action performance in 70 participants with AD who also underwent a neuropsychological evaluation. First, correlation and principal component analyses were performed to examine the construct(s) that might explain everyday action impairment. Second, relations between everyday task component(s) and neuropsychological tests were examined by using correlation and regression analyses. Third, differences in everyday action error patterns were examined among participants of comparable overall impairment levels. Results showed omission and commission errors were uncorrelated and distinct components of everyday action performance, predicted by different neuropsychological tests, and differentially distributed even among participants with comparable overall impairment.

Characterization of everyday functioning in mild cognitive impairment: a direct assessment approach.

AIMS: To evaluate the degree and pattern of functional difficulties in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) via direct observation of everyday task performance. METHODS: MCI (n = 25), mild Alzheimer's disease (AD; n = 25), and control (n = 18) participants performed three everyday tasks of increasing complexity. RESULTS: Although caregivers reported no functional difficulties in MCI, direct observation measures of overall impairment and total errors showed MCI participants performed worse than controls, but better than AD participants, even on simple tasks. MCI and control participants exhibited significantly more difficulty performing steps accurately (i.e. commission errors) than completing task steps (i.e. omission errors), but AD participants showed an even distribution of commissions and omissions. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic criteria for MCI should specify mild functional deficits due to the inefficient and imprecise execution of task steps. Functional deficits characterized by omission of major task segments may indicate a diagnosis of dementia.

The Nursing Home Compare Report Card: Perceptions of Residents and Caregivers Regarding Quality Ratings and Nursing Home Choice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perceived usefulness of publicly reported nursing home quality indicators. STUDY SETTING: Primary data were collected from October 2013 to August 2014 among a convenience sample of persons (or family member) recently admitted or anticipating admission to a nursing home within 75 miles of the city of Philadelphia. STUDY DESIGN: Structured interviews were conducted to assess the salience of data on the Medicare Nursing Home Compare website, including star ratings, clinical quality measures, and benchmarking of individual nursing home quality with state and national data. DATA COLLECTION: Interviews were transcribed verbatim, independently coded by two reviewers, and agreement determined. A thematic analysis of transcripts was undertaken. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-five interviews were completed. Eighty-three percent (n = 29) were caregivers and 17 percent (n = 6) were residents. Star ratings, clinical quality measures, and benchmarking information were salient to decision making, with preferred formats varying across participants. Participants desired additional information on the source of quality data. Confusion was evident regarding the relationship between domain-specific and overall star quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The Nursing Home Compare website provides salient content and formats for consumers. Increased awareness of this resource and clarity regarding the definition of measures could further support informed decision making regarding nursing home choice.