Screening for and Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States Before, During, and After Pregnancy, 2016-2019.

Objectives. To measure rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening during the perinatal period among people experiencing physical violence in the United States. Methods. We used 2016-2019 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data (n = 158 338) to describe the incidence of physical IPV before or during pregnancy. We then assessed the prevalence of IPV screening before, during, or after pregnancy and predictors of receiving screening among those reporting violence. Results. Among the 3.5% (n = 6259) of respondents experiencing violence, 58.7%, 26.9%, and 48.3% were not screened before, during, or after pregnancy, respectively. Those reporting Medicaid or no insurance at birth, American Indian/Alaska Native people, and Spanish-speaking Hispanic people faced increased risk of not having a health care visit during which screening might occur. Among those attending a health care visit, privately insured people, rural residents, and non-Hispanic White respondents faced increased risk of not being screened. Conclusions. Among birthing people reporting physical IPV, nearly half were not screened for IPV before or after pregnancy. Public health efforts to improve maternal health must address both access to care and universal screening for IPV. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(3):297-305. https://doi.org/10.2105/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307195).

A Decade of ACOs in Medicare: Have They Delivered on Their Promise?

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were envisioned as a way to address both health care cost growth and uneven quality in US health care. They emerged in the early 2000s, with the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishing a Medicare ACO program. In the decade since their launch, ACOs have grown into one of Medicare's flagship payment reform programs, with millions of beneficiaries receiving care from hundreds of ACOs. While great expectations surrounded ACOs' introduction into Medicare, their impacts to date have been modest. ACOs have achieved some savings and improvements in measured quality, but disagreement persists over the meaning of those results: Do ACOs represent important, incremental steps forward on the path toward a more efficient, high-quality health care system? Or do their modest achievements signal a failure of large-scale progress despite the substantial investments of resources? ACOs have proven to be politically resilient, largely sidestepping the controversies and partisan polarization that have led to the demise of other ACA provisions. But the same features that have enabled ACOs to evade backlash have constrained their impacts and effectiveness. After a decade, ACOs' long-term influence on Medicare and the US health care system remains uncertain.

Adoption of Patient Engagement Strategies by Physician Practices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement strategies can equip patients with tools to navigate treatment decisions and improve patient-centered outcomes. Despite increased recognition about the importance of patient engagement, little is known about the extent of physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies nationally. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS) on physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies. Stratified-cluster sampling was used to select physician practices operating under different organizational structures. Multivariable linear regression models estimated the association of practice ownership, health information technology functionality, use of screening activities, patient responsiveness, chronic care management processes, and the adoption of patient engagement strategies, including shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and shared medical appointments. All regression models controlled for participation in payment reforms, practice size, Medicaid revenue percentage, and geographic region. RESULTS: We found modest and varied adoption of patient engagement strategies by practices of different ownership types, with health system-owned practices having the lowest adoption of ownership types. Practice capabilities, including chronic care management processes, routine screening of medical and social risks, and patient care dissemination strategies were associated with greater practice-level adoption of patient engagement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This national study is the first to characterize the adoption of patient engagement strategies by US physician practices. We found modest adoption of shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, and low adoption of shared medical appointments. Risk-based payment reform has the potential to motivate greater practice-level patient engagement, but the extent to which it occurs may depend on internal practice capabilities.

Survey of Information Exchange and Advanced Use of Other Health Information Technology in Primary Care Settings: Capabilities In and Outside of the Safety Net.

BACKGROUND: Advanced use of health information technology (IT) functionalities can support more comprehensive, coordinated, and patient-centered primary care services. Safety net practices may benefit disproportionately from these investments, but it is unclear whether IT use in these settings has kept pace and what organizational factors are associated with varying use of these features. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to estimate advanced use of health IT use in safety net versus nonsafety net primary care practices. We explore domains of patient engagement, population health management (decision support and registries), and electronic information exchange. We examine organizational characteristics that may differentially predict advanced use of IT across these settings, with a focus on health system ownership and/or membership in an independent practice network as key factors that may indicate available incentives and resources to support these efforts. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conduct cross-sectional analysis of a national survey of physician practices (n=1776). We use logistic regression to predict advanced IT use in each of our domains based on safety net status and other organizational characteristics. We then use interaction models to assess whether ownership or network membership moderate the relationship between safety net status and advanced use of health IT. RESULTS: Health IT use was common across primary care practices, but advanced use of health IT functionalities ranged only from 30% to 50% use. Safety net settings have kept pace with adoption of features for patient engagement and population management, yet lag in information exchange capabilities compared with nonsafety net practices (odds ratio=0.52 for federally qualified health centers, P<0.001; odds ratio=0.66 for other safety net, P=0.03). However, when safety net practices are members of a health system or practice network, health IT capabilities are comparable to nonsafety net sites. CONCLUSIONS: All outpatient settings would benefit from improved electronic health record usability and implementation support that facilitates advanced use of health IT. Safety net practices, particularly those without other sources of centralized support, need targeted resources to maintain equitable access to information exchange capabilities.

Configuration and Delivery of Primary Care in Rural and Urban Settings.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the capacity of rural primary care due to potential workforce shortages and patients with disproportionately more clinical and socioeconomic risks. Little research examines the configuration and delivery of primary care along the spectrum of rurality. OBJECTIVE: Compare structure, capabilities, and payment reform participation of isolated, small town, micropolitan, and metropolitan physician practices, and the characteristics and utilization of their Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Observational study of practices defined using IQVIA OneKey, 2017 Medicare claims, and, for a subset, the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate=47%). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 27,716,967 beneficiaries with qualifying visits who were assigned to practices. MAIN MEASURES: We characterized practices' structure, capabilities, and payment reform participation and measured beneficiary utilization by rurality. KEY RESULTS: Rural practices were smaller, more primary care dominant, and system-owned, and had more beneficiaries per practice. Beneficiaries in rural practices were more likely to be from high-poverty areas and disabled. There were few differences in patterns of outpatient utilization and practices' care delivery capabilities. Isolated and micropolitan practices reported less engagement in quality-focused payment programs than metropolitan practices. Beneficiaries cared for in more rural settings received fewer recommended mammograms and had higher overall and condition-specific readmissions. Fewer beneficiaries with diabetes in rural practices had an eye exam. Most isolated rural beneficiaries traveled to more urban communities for care. CONCLUSIONS: While most isolated Medicare beneficiaries traveled to more urban practices for outpatient care, those receiving care in rural practices had similar outpatient and inpatient utilization to urban counterparts except for readmissions and quality metrics that rely on services outside of primary care. Rural practices reported similar care capabilities to urban practices, suggesting that despite differences in workforce and demographics, rural patterns of primary care delivery are comparable to urban.

Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes by Health Systems and Physician Practices in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) can help clinicians adjust treatments and deliver patient-centered care, but organizational adoption of PROs remains low. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent of PRO adoption among health systems and physician practices nationally and examines the organizational capabilities associated with more extensive PRO adoption. DESIGN: Two nationally representative surveys were analyzed in parallel to assess health system and physician practice capabilities associated with adoption of PROs of disability, pain, and depression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 323 US health system and 2,190 physician practice respondents METHODS: Multivariable regression models separately estimated the association of health system and physician practice capabilities associated with system-level and practice-level adoption of PROs. MAIN MEASURES: Health system and physician practice adoption of PROs for depression, pain, and disability. KEY RESULTS: Pain (50.6%) and depression (43.8%) PROs were more commonly adopted by all hospitals and medical groups within health systems compared to disability PROs (26.5%). In adjusted analyses, systems with more advanced health IT functions were more likely to use disability (p<0.05) and depression (p<0.01) PROs than systems with less advanced health IT. Practice-level advanced health IT was positively associated with use of depression PRO (p<0.05), but not disability or pain PRO use. Practices with more chronic care management processes, broader medical and social risk screening, and more processes to support patient responsiveness were more likely to adopt each of the three PROs. Compared to independent physician practices, system-owned practices and community health centers were less likely to adopt PROs. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic care management programs, routine screening, and patient-centered care initiatives can enable PRO adoption at the practice level. Developing these practice-level capabilities may improve PRO adoption more than solely expanding health IT functions.

Using a mixed-effect model with a parameter-space of heterogenous dimension to evaluate whether accountable care organizations are associated with greater uniformity across constituent practices.

Accountable care organization (ACO) legislation was designed to improve patient outcomes by inducing greater coordination of care and adoption of best practices. Therefore, it is of interest to assess whether greater uniformity occurs among practices comprising an ACO post ACO formation. We develop a mixed-effect model with a difference-in-difference design to evaluate the effect of a patient receiving care from an ACO on patient outcomes and adapt this model to examine whether an ACO is associated with increased uniformity across its constituent practices. The task is complicated by the organizations within an ACO forming an additional layer in the multilevel model, due to medical practices and hospitals that form an ACOs being nested within the ACO, making the number of levels of the model variable and the dimension of the parameter space time-varying. We develop the model and a procedure for testing the hypothesis that ACO formation was associated with increased uniformity among its constituent practices. We apply our procedure to a cohort of medicare beneficiaries followed over 2009-2014. Although there is extensive heterogeneity of becoming an ACOs across practices, we find that the formation of an ACO appears to be associated with greater uniformity of patient outcomes among its constituent practices.

FQHC Designation and Safety Net Patient Revenue Associated with Primary Care Practice Capabilities for Access and Quality.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices. OBJECTIVE: To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients. DESIGN: We analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Our key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not. KEY RESULTS: FQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: FQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

Critical issues in alliances between management partners and accountable care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread engagement of accountable care organizations (ACOs) with management partners, little empirical evidence on these alliances exists to inform policymakers or payers. Management partners may be providing a valuable service in facilitating the transition to population health management. Alternately, in some cases, partners may be receiving high fees relative to the value of services provided. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to use qualitative data to identify motivations for and critical issues in alliances between ACOs and management partners. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We used qualitative data collected from seven ACOs (193 semistructured interviews and observational data from 12 site visits) to characterize the alliances between management partners and providers in ACOs. RESULTS: We found that ACOs sought partners to provide financing, technical expertise, and risk bearing. Tensions in partnerships arose around resources (e.g., delivery on promised resources), control (e.g., who holds decision making authority), and values (e.g., commitment to safety net mission). Some partnerships persisted, whereas others dissolved. We found that there are two different underlying models of ACO-management partner alliances in our sample: (1) short-term partnerships aimed at organizational learning and (2) long-term partnerships based on complementarity. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate how ACO alliances with management partners have unfolded as a kind of natural experiment in value-based payment reform. We expect that there is wide variation in quality, expertise, and delivery by management partners. Now multiple years into many of these alliances, we may address their value, strengths, and weaknesses from the perspective of providers as well as policy makers and payers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Accountable care organization providers must determine whether a management partner is the best solution to the challenges they face and, if so, which alliance model to pursue. Policymakers and payers should consider short- and long-term implications of ACO-management partner alliances, including considering changing the regulatory environment.

The Role of Value-Based Payment in Promoting Innovation to Address Social Risks: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Risk Screening by US Physicians.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity. CONTEXT: One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks. METHODS: We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening. FINDINGS: On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.

Developing and Validating a Measure to Estimate Poverty in Medicare Administrative Data.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a measure that estimates individual level poverty in Medicare administrative data that can be used in studies of Medicare claims. DATA SOURCES: A 2008 to 2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey linked to 2008 to 2013 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary summary file and census data. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey to define individual level poverty status and linked to Medicare administrative data (N=38,053). We partitioned data into a measure derivation dataset and a validation dataset. In the derivation data, we used a logistic model to regress poverty status on measures of dual eligible status, part D low-income subsidy, and demographic and administrative data, and modeled with and without linked census and nursing home data. Each beneficiary receives a predicted poverty score from the model. Performance was evaluated in derivation and validation data and compared with other measures used in the literature. We present a measure for income-only poverty as well as one for income and asset poverty. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A score (predicted probability of income poverty) >0.5 yielded 58% sensitivity, 94% specificity, and 84% positive predictive value in the derivation data; our score yielded very similar results in the validation data. The model's c-statistic was 0.84. Our poverty score performed better than Medicaid enrollment, high zip code poverty, and zip code median income. The income and asset version performed similarly well. CONCLUSIONS: A poverty score can be calculated using Medicare administrative data for use as a continuous or binary measure. This measure can improve researchers' ability to identify poverty in Medicare administrative data.

Changes in Use of Postacute Care Associated With Accountable Care Organizations in Hip Fracture, Stroke, and Pneumonia Hospitalized Cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in more and less discretionary condition-specific postacute care use (skilled nursing, inpatient rehabilitation, home health) associated with Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) implementation. DATA SOURCES: 2009-2014 Medicare fee-for-service claims. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-difference methodology comparing postacute outcomes after hospitalization for hip fracture and stroke (where rehabilitation is fundamental to the episode of care) to pneumonia, (where it is more discretionary) for beneficiaries attributed to ACO and non-ACO providers. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across all 3 cohorts, in the baseline period ACO patients were more likely to receive Medicare-paid postacute care and had higher episode spending. In hip fracture patients where rehabilitation is standard of care, ACO implementation was associated with 6%-8% increases in probability of admission to a skilled nursing facility or inpatient rehabilitation (compared with home without care), and a slight reduction in readmissions. In a clinical condition where rehabilitation is more discretionary, pneumonia, ACO implementation was not associated with changes in postacute location, but episodic spending decreased 2%-3%. Spending decreases were concentrated in the least complex patients. Across all cohorts, the length of stay in skilled nursing facilities decreased with ACO implementation. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs decreased spending on postacute care by decreasing use of discretionary services. ACO implementation was associated with reduced length of stay in skilled nursing facilities, while hip fracture patients used institutional postacute settings at higher rates. Among pneumonia patients, we observed decreases in spending, readmission days, and mortality associated with ACO implementation.

Clinical coordination in accountable care organizations: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are becoming a common payment and delivery model. Despite widespread interest, little empirical research has examined what efforts or strategies ACOs are using to change care and reduce costs. Knowledge of ACOs' clinical efforts can provide important context for understanding ACO performance, particularly to distinguish arenas where ACOs have and have not attempted care transformation. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to understand ACOs' efforts to change clinical care during the first 18 months of ACO contracts. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews between July and December 2013. Our sample includes ACOs that began performance contracts in 2012, including Medicare Shared Savings Program and Pioneer participants, stratified across key factors. In total, we conducted interviews with executives from 30 ACOs. Iterative qualitative analysis identified common patterns and themes. RESULTS: ACOs in the first year of performance contracts are commonly focusing on four areas: first, transforming primary care through increased access and team-based care; second, reducing avoidable emergency department use; third, strengthening practice-based care management; and fourth, developing new boundary spanner roles and activities. ACOs were doing little around transforming specialty care, acute and postacute care, or standardizing care across practices during the first 18 months of ACO performance contracts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest that cost reductions associated with ACOs in the first years of contracts may be related to primary care. Although in the long term many hope ACOs will achieve coordination across a wide array of care settings and providers, in the short term providers under ACO contracts are focused largely on primary care-related strategies. Our work provides a template of the common areas of clinical activity in the first years of ACO contracts, which may be informative to providers considering becoming an ACO. Further research will be needed to understand how these strategies are associated with performance.

Trust, Money, and Power: Life Cycle Dynamics in Alliances Between Management Partners and Accountable Care Organizations.

Policy Points Accountable care organizations (ACOs) form alliances with management partners to access financial, technical, and managerial support. Alliances between ACOs and management partners are subject to destabilizing tension around decision-making authority, distribution of shared savings, and conflicting goals and values. Management partners may serve either as trainers, ultimately breaking off from the ACO, or as central drivers of the ACO. Management partner participation in ACOs is currently unregulated, and management partners may receive a significant portion (in some cases, majority) of shared savings. CONTEXT: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are a prominent payment and delivery model. Though ACOs are often described as groups of health care providers, nearly 4 in 10 ACOs partner with a management company for services such as financial investment, contracting, data analytics, and care management, according to recent research. However, we know little about how and why these partnerships form. This article aims to understand the reasons providers seek partners, the nature of these relationships, and factors critical to the success or failure of these alliances. METHODS: We used qualitative data collected longitudinally from 2012 to 2017 at 2 ACOs to understand relationships between management partners and ACO providers. The data include 115 semistructured interviews and observational data from 7 site visits. Two coders applied 48 codes to the data. We reviewed coded data for emergent themes in the context of alliance life cycle theory. FINDINGS: Qualitative data revealed that management partners brought specific skills and services and also gave providers confidence in pursuing an ACO. Over time, tension between providers and management partners arose around decision-making authority, distribution of shared savings, and conflicting goals and values. We observed 2 outcomes of partnerships: cemented partnerships and dissolution. Key factors distinguishing alliance outcome in these 2 cases include degree of trust between organizations in the alliance; approach to conflict resolution; distribution of power in the alliance; skills and confidence acquired by the ACO over the life of the alliance; continuity of management partner delivery on promised resources; and proportion of savings going to the management partner. CONCLUSIONS: The diverging paths for ACOs with management partners suggest 2 different roles that management partners may play in ACO development. In some cases, management partners may serve as trainers, with the partnership dissolving once the ACO gains skills and confidence to work alone. In other cases, the management partner is a central driver of the ACO and unlikely to break off.

Disentangling the Role of Health Care Systems in Producing High-Quality Care.

This Viewpoint examines in-depth 5 features of health care systems that may influence quality of care: pooled resources, centralization, standardization, interprovider coordination, and cross-practice learning.

Preventive Care Quality of Medicare Accountable Care Organizations: Associations of Organizational Characteristics With Performance.

BACKGROUND: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are a delivery and payment model aiming to coordinate care, control costs, and improve quality. Medicare ACOs are responsible for 8 measures of preventive care quality. OBJECTIVES: To create composite measures of preventive care quality and examine associations of ACO characteristics with performance. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study of Medicare Shared Savings Program and Pioneer participants. We linked quality performance to descriptive data from the National Survey of ACOs. We created composite measures using exploratory factor analysis, and used regression to assess associations with organizational characteristics. RESULTS: Of 252 eligible ACOs, 246 reported on preventive care quality, 177 of which completed the survey (response rate=72%). In their first year, ACOs lagged behind PPO performance on the majority of comparable measures. We identified 2 underlying factors among 8 measures and created composites for each: disease prevention, driven by vaccines and cancer screenings, and wellness screening, driven by annual health screenings. Participation in the Advanced Payment Model, having fewer specialists, and having more Medicare ACO beneficiaries per primary care provider were associated with significantly better performance on both composites. Better performance on disease prevention was also associated with inclusion of a hospital, greater electronic health record capabilities, a larger primary care workforce, and fewer minority beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: ACO preventive care quality performance is related to provider composition and benefitted by upfront investment. Vaccine and cancer screening quality performance is more dependent on organizational structure and characteristics than performance on annual wellness screenings, likely due to greater complexity in eligibility determination and service administration.

Characteristics and Service Use of Medicare Beneficiaries Using Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide primary care for millions of Americans, but little is known about Medicare beneficiaries who use FQHCs. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics and health care service use among Medicare beneficiaries stratified by FQHC use. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2011 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. SUBJECTS: Subjects included beneficiaries with at least 1 evaluation and management (E&M) visit in 2011, categorized as FQHC users (≥1 E&M visit to FQHCs) or nonusers living in the same primary care service areas as FQHC users. Users were subclassified as predominant if the majority of their E&M visits were to FQHCs. MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, physician visits, and inpatient care use. RESULTS: Most FQHC users (56.6%) were predominant users. Predominant and nonpredominant users, compared with nonusers, markedly differed by prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (18.2%, 31.7% vs. 22.7%) and annual mortality (2.8%, 3.8% vs. 4.0%; all P<0.05). In adjusted analyses (reference: nonusers), predominant users had fewer physician visits (RR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.81) and fewer hospitalizations (RR=0.84; 95% CI, 0.84-0.85), whereas nonpredominant users had higher use of both types of service (RR=1.18, 95% CI, 1.18-1.18; RR=1.09, 95% CI, 1.08-1.10, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Even controlling for primary care delivery markets, nonpredominant FQHC users had a higher burden of chronic illness and service use than predominant FQHC users. It will be important to monitor Medicare beneficiaries using FQHCs to understand whether primary care only payment incentives for FQHCs could induce fragmented care.

Contributions of relational coordination to care management in accountable care organizations: Views of managerial and clinical leaders.

BACKGROUND: The accountable care organization (ACO) is a new type of health care organization incentivized to improve quality of care, improve population health, and reduce the cost of care. An ACO's success in meeting these objectives depends greatly upon its ability to improve patient care management. Numerous studies have found relational coordination to be positively associated with key measures of organizational performance in health care organizations, including quality and efficiency. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) identify the extent to which ACO leaders are aware of the dimensions of relational coordination, and (b) identify the ways these leaders believe the dimensions influenced care management practices in their organization. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We performed content analysis of interviews with managerial and clinical leaders from a diverse group of 11 ACOs to assess awareness of relational coordination and identify the ways that dimensions of relational coordination were perceived to influence development of care management practices. FINDINGS: ACO leaders mentioned four relational coordination dimensions: shared goals, frequency of communication, timeliness of communication, and problem solving communication. Three dimensions - shared knowledge of team members' tasks, mutual respect, and accuracy of communication - were not mentioned. Our analysis identified numerous ways leaders believed the four mentioned dimensions contributed to the development of care management, including contributions to standardization of care, patient engagement, coordination of care, and care planning. DISCUSSION: We propose two hypotheses for future research on relational coordination and care management. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If relational coordination is to have a beneficial influence on ACO performance, organizational leaders must become more aware of relational coordination and its various dimensions and become cognizant of relational coordination's influence on care management in their ACO. We suggest a number of means by which ACO leaders could become more aware of relational coordination and its potential effects.

Implementation of a pilot accountable care organization payment model and the use of discretionary and nondiscretionary cardiovascular care.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) seek to reduce growth in healthcare spending while ensuring high-quality care. We hypothesized that accountable care organization implementation would selectively limit the use of discretionary cardiovascular care (defined as care occurring in the absence of indications such as myocardial infarction or stroke), while maintaining high-quality care, such as nondiscretionary cardiovascular imaging and procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: The intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare patients (n=819 779) from 10 groups participating in a Medicare pilot accountable care organization, the Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD). Matched controls were patients (n=934 621) from nonparticipating groups in the same regions. We compared use of cardiovascular care before (2002-2004) and after (2005-2009) PGPD implementation, studying both discretionary and nondiscretionary carotid and coronary imaging and procedures. Our main outcome measure was the difference in the proportion of patients treated with imaging and procedures among patients of PGPD practices compared with patients in control practices, before and after PGPD implementation (difference-in-difference). For discretionary imaging, the difference-in-difference between PGPD practices and controls was not statistically significant for discretionary carotid imaging (0.17%; 95% confidence interval, -0.51% to 0.85%; P=0.595) or discretionary coronary imaging (-0.19%; 95% confidence interval, -0.73% to 0.35%; P=0.468). Similarly, the difference-in-difference was also minimal for discretionary carotid revascularization (0.003%; 95% confidence interval, -0.008% to 0.002%; P=0.705) and coronary revascularization (-0.02%; 95% confidence interval, -0.11% to 0.07%; P=0.06). The difference-in-difference associated with PGPD implementation was also essentially 0 for nondiscretionary cardiovascular imaging or procedures. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pilot accountable care organization did not limit the use of discretionary or nondiscretionary cardiovascular care in 10 large health systems.