Frontline perspectives on barriers to care for patients with California Medicaid: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While insurance is integral for accessing healthcare in the US, coverage alone may not ensure access, especially for those publicly insured. Access barriers for Medicaid-insured patients are rooted in social drivers of health, insurance complexities in the setting of managed care plans, and federal- and state-level policies. Elucidating barriers at the health system level may reveal opportunities for sustainable solutions. METHODS: To understand barriers to ambulatory care access for patients with Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid program) and identify improvement opportunities, we performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of a referred sample of clinicians and administrative staff members experienced with clinical patient encounters and/or completion of referral processes for patients with Medi-Cal (n = 19) at a large academic medical center. The interview guide covered the four process steps to accessing care within the health system: (1) scheduling, (2) referral and authorization, (3) contracting, and (4) the clinical encounter. We transcribed and inductively coded the interviews, then organized themes across the four steps to identify perceptions of barriers to access and improvement opportunities for ambulatory care for patients with Medi-Cal. RESULTS: Clinicians and administrative staff members at a large academic medical center revealed barriers to ambulatory care access for Medi-Cal insured patients, including lack of awareness of system-level policy, complexities surrounding insurance contracting, limited resources for social support, and poor dissemination of information to patients. Particularly, interviews revealed how managed Medi-Cal impacts academic health systems through additional time and effort by frontline staff to facilitate patient access compared to fee-for-service Medi-Cal. Interviewees reported that this resulted in patient care delays, suboptimal care coordination, and care fragmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight gaps in system-level policy, inconsistencies in pursuing insurance authorizations, limited resources for scheduling and social work support, and poor dissemination of information to and between providers and patients, which limit access to care at an academic medical center for Medi-Cal insured patients. Many interviewees additionally shared the moral injury that they experienced as they witnessed patient care delays in the absence of system-level structures to address these barriers. Reform at the state, insurance organization, and institutional levels is necessary to form solutions within Medi-Cal innovation efforts.

Academic seminars as tool for clinical and translational science education and dissemination: Perceptions and priorities in the COVID-19 era.

Academic seminars are an important venue through which investigators in health services research (HSR) and other clinical and translational science disciplines can share their work, gather feedback, and connect with colleagues. However, the format and focus of these seminars shifted abruptly when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated social distancing and underscored the salience of health equity. Little is known about how contemporary academic seminars are meeting the evolving needs of the HSR community. We surveyed 2021-2022 participants in a virtual HSR seminar series to understand experiences of and priorities for the seminars. We also compared results stratified by self-reported under-represented minority (URM) status. Of 45 respondents (including 26 faculty members, 8 trainees, 9 staff members, and 2 community partners), 38% self-identified as URM. Participants reported high satisfaction with seminar quality, diversity of topics, and audience participation (median ≥4 for all outcomes in Likert-scaled items where 5 = very satisfied). Knowledge acquisition, understanding of research methods, and collaboration were commonly cited as benefits of seminar attendance. Implementation science content and external collaboration were most often endorsed as priorities for future seminars. URM participants were over three times more likely than non-URM participants to cite learning about engaging community stakeholders and historically excluded populations as a benefit of seminar participation. Virtual academic seminars can be an effective modality for knowledge sharing and collaboration worth continuing after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. Emphasizing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) values in these seminars may hold potential for advancing academic departments' own EDI goals.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Practical publication metrics for academics.

Research organizations are becoming more reliant on quantitative approaches to determine how to recruit and promote researchers, allocate funding, and evaluate the impact of prior allocations. Many of these quantitative metrics are based on research publications. Publication metrics are not only important for individual careers, but also affect the progress of science as a whole via their role in the funding award process. Understanding the origin and intended use of popular publication metrics can inform an evaluative strategy that balances the usefulness of publication metrics with the limitations of what they can convey about the productivity and quality of an author, a publication, or a journal. This paper serves as a brief introduction to citation networks like Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Microsoft Academic, and Dimensions. It also explains two of the most popular publication metrics: the h-index and the journal impact factor. The purpose of this paper is to provide practical information on using citation networks to generate publication metrics, and to discuss ideas for contextualizing and juxtaposing metrics, in order to help researchers in translational science and other disciplines document their impact in as favorable a light as may be justified.

Oncologists' perceptions of the usefulness of cancer survivorship care plan components.

PURPOSE: The Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans (SCP) summarizing information important to the individual's long-term care. The various components of SCPs have varying levels of evidence supporting their impact. We surveyed medical oncologists to better understand how they perceived the relative value of different SCP components. METHODS: Medical oncologists caring for patients in diverse US practice settings were surveyed (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) about their perceptions of the usefulness of various components of SCPs to both patients and primary care physicians (PCPs). RESULTS: Oncologists perceived treatment summaries as "very useful" for PCPs but were less likely to perceive them as "very useful" for patients (55% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Information about the psychological effects of cancer (41% vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and healthy behaviors (67% vs. 41%; p < 0.001) were considered more useful to patients than to PCPs. From 3 to 20% of oncologists believed that any given component of the SCP was not useful to either PCPs or patients. Oncologists who perceived SCPs to be more useful tended to be female or to practice in settings with a fully implemented electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists do not perceive all components of SCPs to be equally useful to both patients and PCPs. To be successfully implemented, the SCP should be efficiently tailored to the unique needs and knowledge of patients and their PCPs. A minority of oncologists appear to be late adopters, suggesting that some resistance to the adoption of SCPs remains.

Engaging Latino Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Survivors in Their Care: Piloting a Photonovela Intervention.

Latino adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors represent a growing population given the changing demographics in the USA. They experience significant healthcare disparities and barriers that warrant age-specific and culturally appropriate interventions to improve their clinical and psychosocial outcomes. This single-arm pilot study evaluated a novel intervention - a photonovela - on its ability to educate Latino AYA survivors and their family members and engage them in survivorship care. Ninety-seven participants (Latino AYA survivors and their family members) were recruited for this study. Three surveys assessing survivorship care confidence, cancer stigma, and survivorship care knowledge were administered to families before they received the photonovela, after the intervention, and at a booster phone call session. Mixed effects models were used to evaluate differences in scores at the three time points while accounting for repeated measures and family clustering. Results show that the photonovela was effective in improving survivorship care confidence and knowledge of Latino AYA survivors and their families. This pilot study indicates that the photonovela has potential to be a useful intervention for improving confidence and knowledge regarding the need to seek survivorship care for Latino AYA cancer survivors.

Taking Care of Yourself and Your Risk for Breast Cancer (CUIDARSE): A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Health Communication Intervention for Latinas.

Latinas in the United States are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer (BC) compared to non-Latinas. Literacy-appropriate and culturally sensitive cancer communication interventions can help address existing racial/ethnic BC disparities. We formatively developed a new BC prevention brochure for Spanish-speaking Latinas (≥35 years). Eligible women (n = 240) from a large public hospital in California were randomly assigned to one of three study arms: Group 1 received the new brochure, Group 2 included a community health worker (CHW) who delivered the new brochure's content, and a control group received a standard educational brochure. Participants completed three surveys (baseline, postintervention, 3-month follow-up) with a 100% completion rate for the first two surveys and 80.4% completion after 3 months. We assessed the difference in outcomes for BC risk knowledge, perceived BC susceptibility, and BC information self-efficacy between groups. Participant mean age was 52.3 years, and 82.1% reported low English proficiency. Mean knowledge scores increased and perceived BC susceptibility improved for all groups (p ≤ .05), yet treatment effects were not significant between groups for these outcomes. BC information self-efficacy also increased from baseline to postintervention for all groups to >80%. After 3 months, only Group 2 and the control group retained their increases and treatment effects were significant only for Group 2 compared to other groups in unadjusted and adjusted models. A CHW-delivered intervention may be more effective in improving BC information self-efficacy among Latinas compared to print material alone. More research is needed to examine the efficacy of CHW-delivered interventions.

Low-Value Proton Pump Inhibitor Prescriptions Among Older Adults at a Large Academic Health System.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are particularly vulnerable to complications from proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drugs. We sought to characterize the prevalence of potentially low-value PPI prescriptions among older adults to inform a quality improvement (QI) intervention. METHODS: We created a cohort of patients, aged 65 years or older, receiving primary care at a large academic health system in 2018. We identified patients currently prescribed any PPI using the electronic health record (EHR) medication list (current defined as September 1, 2018). A geriatrician, a gastroenterologist, a QI expert, and two primary care physicians (PCPs) created multidisciplinary PPI appropriateness criteria based on evidenced-based guidelines. Supervised by a gastroenterologist and PCP, two internal medicine residents conducted manual chart reviews in a random sample of 399 patients prescribed PPIs. We considered prescriptions potentially low value if they lacked a guideline-based (1) short-term indication (gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD]/peptic ulcer disease/Helicobacter pylori gastritis/dyspepsia) or (2) long-term (>8 weeks) indication (severe/refractory GERD/erosive esophagitis/Barrett esophagus/esophageal adenocarcinoma/esophageal stricture/high gastrointestinal bleeding risk/Zollinger-Ellison syndrome). We used the Wilson score method to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on low-value PPI prescription prevalence. RESULTS: Among 69 352 older adults, 8729 (12.6%) were prescribed a PPI. In the sample of 399 patients prescribed PPIs, 63.9% were female; their mean age was 76.2 years, and they were seen by 169 PCPs. Of the 399 prescriptions, 143 (35.8%; 95% CI = 31.3%-40.7%) were potentially low value-of which 82% began appropriately (eg, GERD) but then continued long term without a guideline-based indication. Among 169 PCPs, 32 (18.9%) contributed to 59.2% of potentially low-value prescriptions. CONCLUSION: One in eight older adults were prescribed a PPI, and over one-third of prescriptions were potentially low-value. Most often, appropriate short-term prescriptions became potentially low value because they lacked long-term indications. With most potentially low-value prescribing concentrated among a small subset of PCPs, interventions targeting them and/or applying EHR-based automatic stopping rules may protect older adults from harm. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2600-2604, 2019.

The use of mobile technology and peer navigation to promote adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivorship care: results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors experience unique barriers that compromise receipt of survivorship care; therefore, development of innovative educational interventions to improve rates of AYA survivorship care is needed. The efficacy of text-messaging and peer navigation interventions was compared to standard-of-care survivorship educational materials to increase AYAs' (1) late effects knowledge and (2) knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy towards seeking survivor-focused care. METHODS: This was a three-armed, prospective, randomized controlled trial with one control group and two intervention groups. The control group received current standard-of-care educational materials. One intervention group participated in a text-messaging program, and the second participated in a peer navigator program. Participants completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. Study outcome variables were quantified using Fisher exact tests, two-sample t tests, exact McNemar tests, conditional logistic regression models, and analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Seventy-one survivors completed the study (control n = 24; text-messaging n = 23; peer navigation n = 24). Late effects knowledge was high at baseline for all groups. The text-messaging group had increased survivorship care knowledge compared to the control group (p < 0.05); the peer navigation group had increased survivorship care self-efficacy compared to the control group; p < 0.05. Both intervention groups showed increased attitudes towards seeking survivor-focused care compared to the control group (text-messaging p < 0.05; peer navigation p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Each intervention demonstrated significant benefits compared to the control group. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Given the preliminary effectiveness of both interventions, each can potentially be used in the future by AYA cancer survivors to educate and empower them to obtain needed survivorship care.

Potential Effect of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act on Use of Advanced Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: An Analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey.

Background Clinical decision support is increasingly used to enhance clinicians' exposure to established evidence and patient information during an episode of patient care. Pending legislation specifies clinical decision support before performing advanced imaging at emergency department (ED) visits. Purpose To estimate the volume of advanced imaging tests (CT and MRI) that would require use of clinical decision support to achieve Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) compliance in the ED. Materials and Methods A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of ED visits was conducted by using data from the 2012-2015 National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey. PAMA-related visits were identified by selecting the patient reasons for visit (RFVs) related to the eight clinical conditions. Results Among the adult ED visits, 26.7% (20 506 of 77 299, representing 113 000 000 visits across 4 years, or 28 000 000 visits annually) patients presented with a RFV consistent with a PAMA priority clinical area (PCA). Among visits in which a patient described an RFV code consistent with a PAMA PCA, up to 22.9% (4681 of 20 506; 95% confidence interval: 21.8%, 24.1%) patients underwent advanced imaging, translating to approximately 6 000 000 visits annually. Conclusion Protecting Access to Medicare Act legislation targets eight priority clinical areas, estimated to be prevalent among one in four adult emergency department visits. CT and/or MRI studies are performed during up to 23% of these visits. Depending on the particular clinical decision support systems selected within a health system, and how they are implemented, the potential volume of studies in which clinicians must interact with clinical decision support system may either exceed or fall short of these estimates. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Forman in this issue.

Primary Care Visit Regularity and Patient Outcomes: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Regular primary care visits may allow an opportunity to deliver high-value, proactive care. However, no previous study has examined whether more temporally regular primary care visits predict better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the temporal regularity of primary care (PC) visits and outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: We used Medicare claims for 378,862 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, who received PC at 1328 federally qualified health centers from 2010 to 2014. MAIN MEASURES: We created five beneficiary groups based upon their annual number of PC visits. We further subdivided those groups according to whether PC visits occurred with more or less regularity than the median value. We compared these 10 subgroups on three outcomes, adjusting for beneficiary characteristics: emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and total Medicare expenditures. We also aggregated to the clinic level and divided clinics into tertiles of more, less, and similarly regular to predicted. We compared these three groups of clinics on the same three outcomes of care. KEY RESULTS: Within each visit frequency group, beneficiaries in the subgroup with fewer regular visits had more ED visits, more hospitalizations, and higher costs. Among beneficiaries with the most frequent PC visits, the less regular subgroup had more ED visits (1.70 vs. 1.31 per person-year), more hospitalizations (0.69 vs. 0.57), and greater Medicare expenditures ($20,731 vs. $17,430, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Clinics whose PC visits were more regular than predicted also had better outcomes than other clinics, although the effect sizes were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal patterns of PC visits are correlated with outcomes, even among beneficiaries who appear otherwise similar. Measuring the temporal regularity of PC visits may be useful for identifying beneficiaries at risk for adverse events, and as a barometer for and an impetus to clinic-level quality improvement.

Examining differential performance of 3 medical home recognition programs.

OBJECTIVES: We examined differences in patient outcomes associated with 3 patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition programs-National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Level 3, The Joint Commission (TJC), and Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC)-among Medicare beneficiaries receiving care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from CMS' FQHC Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration, in which participating FQHCs received assistance to achieve NCQA Level 3 PCMH recognition. We assessed the impact of the 3 recognition programs on utilization, quality, and Medicare expenditures using a sample of 1108 demonstration and comparison FQHCs. METHODS: Using propensity-weighted difference-in-differences analyses, we compared changes in outcomes over 3 years for beneficiaries attributed to FQHCs that achieved each type of recognition relative to beneficiaries attributed to FQHCs that did not achieve recognition. RESULTS: Recognized FQHCs, compared with nonrecognized FQHCs, were associated with significant 3-year changes in FQHC visits, non-FQHC primary care visits, specialty visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, a composite diabetes process measure, and Medicare expenditures. Changes varied in direction and strength by recognition type. In year 3, compared with nonrecognized sites, NCQA Level 3 sites were associated with greater increases in ambulatory visits and quality and greater reductions in hospitalizations and expenditures (P <.01), TJC sites were associated with significant reductions in ED visits and hospitalizations (P <.01), and AAAHC sites had changes in the opposite direction of what we anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous changes in beneficiary utilization, quality, and expenditures by recognition type may be explained by differences in recognition criteria, evaluation processes, and documentation requirements.

Associations of CAHPS Composites With Global Ratings of the Doctor Vary by Medicare Beneficiaries' Health Status.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Care coordination among health care providers is essential for high-quality care and it is strongly associated with overall ratings of doctors. Care coordination may be especially important for sicker and chronically ill patients because of the multiple providers involved in their care. This study examines whether the association of care coordination with global ratings of one's personal doctor varies by number of chronic conditions and self-rated health. STUDY DESIGN: We used nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data to evaluate care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, getting care quickly, count of 6 chronic conditions (angina, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart attack, stroke), self-rated general health (5-point scale, poor to excellent, scored linearly), and interactions among them as predictors of the CAHPS global rating of personal doctor (scored 0-100 with 100 being best possible personal doctor) using linear regression models. The analytic sample included 242,871 Medicare fee-for-service and managed care beneficiaries in 2013: 56% female; 14% 18-64, 47% 65-74, 27% 75-84, and 11% 85 and older; and 48% high school education or less. RESULTS: The CAHPS composites (of care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly) and number of chronic conditions were significantly positively associated with ratings of personal doctor (P<0.05). Care coordination and doctor communication had a stronger association with positive ratings of the personal doctor among those with worse self-rated health (P<0.001). DISCUSSION: Results were consistent with the hypothesis that patients in worse health weigh care coordination more heavily in global physician assessments than patients in better health. Emphasis on improving care coordination, especially for patients in poorer health, may improve patients' overall assessments of their providers. The study provides further evidence for the importance of care coordination experiences in the era of patient-centered care.

Utilization of health care services among Medicare beneficiaries who visit federally qualified health centers.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have disagreed on whether patients who receive primary care from federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have different utilization patterns than patients who receive care elsewhere. Our objective was to compare patterns of healthcare utilization between Medicare beneficiaries who received primary care from FQHCs and Medicare beneficiaries who received primary care from another source. METHODS: We compared characteristics and ambulatory, emergency department (ED), and inpatient utilization during 2013 between 130,637 Medicare beneficiaries who visited an FQHC for the majority of their primary care in 2013 (FQHC users) and a random sample of 1,000,000 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries who did not visit an FQHC (FQHC non-users). We then created a propensity-matched sample of 130,569 FQHC users and 130,569 FQHC non-users to account for differences in observable patient characteristics between the two groups and repeated all comparisons. RESULTS: Before matching, the two samples differed in terms of age (42% below age 65 for FQHC users vs. 16% among FQHC non-users, p < 0.001 for all comparisons), disability (52% vs. 24%), eligibility for Medicaid (56% vs. 21%), severe mental health disorders (17% vs. 10%), and substance abuse disorders (6% vs. 3%). FQHC users had fewer ambulatory visits to primary care or specialist providers (10.0 vs. 12.0 per year), more ED visits (1.2 vs. 0.8), and fewer hospitalizations (0.3 vs. 0.4). In the matched sample, FQHC users still had slightly lower utilization of ambulatory visits to primary care or specialist providers (10.0 vs. 11.2) and slightly higher utilization of ED visits (1.2 vs. 1.0), compared to FQHC users. Hospitalization rates between the two groups were similar (0.3 vs. 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of Medicare FFS beneficiaries, FQHC users had slightly lower utilization of ambulatory visits and slightly higher utilization of ED visits, compared to FQHC non-users, after accounting for differences in case mix. This study suggests that FQHC care and non-FQHC care are associated with broadly similar levels of healthcare utilization among Medicare FFS beneficiaries.

Pathways to Medical Home Recognition: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the PCMH Transformation Process.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the process of practice transformation by identifying pathways for attaining patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The CMS Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration was designed to help FQHCs achieve NCQA Level 3 PCMH recognition and improve patient outcomes. We used a stratified random sample of 20 (out of 503) participating sites for this analysis. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a conceptual model of structural, cultural, and implementation factors affecting PCMH transformation based on literature and initial qualitative interview themes. We then used conventional cross-case analysis, followed by qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), a cross-case method based on Boolean logic algorithms, to systematically identify pathways (i.e., combinations of factors) associated with attaining-or not attaining-Level 3 recognition. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Site-level indicators were derived from semistructured interviews with site leaders at two points in time (mid- and late-implementation) and administrative data collected prior to and during the demonstration period. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The QCA results identified five distinct pathways to attaining PCMH recognition and four distinct pathways to not attaining recognition by the end of the demonstration. Across these pathways, one condition (change leader capacity) was common to all pathways for attaining recognition, and another (previous improvement or recognition experience) was absent in all pathways for not attaining recognition. In general, sites could compensate for deficiencies in one factor with capacity in others, but they needed a threshold of strengths in cultural and implementation factors to attain PCMH recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts at primary care transformation should take into account multiple pathways sites may pursue. Sites should be assessed on key cultural and implementation factors, in addition to structural components, in order to differentiate interventions and technical assistance.

Implementation of Medical Homes in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: From 2011 through 2014, the Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration provided care management fees and technical assistance to a nationwide sample of 503 federally qualified health centers to help them achieve the highest (level 3) medical-home recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a designation that requires the implementation of processes to improve access, continuity, and coordination. METHODS: We examined the achievement of medical-home recognition and used Medicare claims and beneficiary surveys to measure utilization of services, quality of care, patients' experiences, and Medicare expenditures in demonstration sites versus comparison sites. Using difference-in-differences analyses, we compared changes in outcomes in the two groups of sites during a 3-year period. RESULTS: Level 3 medical-home recognition was awarded to 70% of demonstration sites and to 11% of comparison sites. Although the number of visits to federally qualified health centers decreased in the two groups, smaller reductions among demonstration sites than among comparison sites led to a relative increase of 83 visits per 1000 beneficiaries per year at demonstration sites (P<0.001). Similar trends explained the higher performance of demonstration sites with respect to annual eye examinations and nephropathy tests (P<0.001 for both comparisons); there were no significant differences with respect to three other process measures. Demonstration sites had larger increases than comparison sites in emergency department visits (30.3 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P<0.001), inpatient admissions (5.7 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P=0.02), and Medicare Part B expenditures ($37 more per beneficiary per year, P=0.02). Demonstration-site participation was not associated with relative improvements in most measures of patients' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration sites had higher rates of medical-home recognition and smaller decreases in the number of patients' visits to federally qualified health centers than did comparison sites, findings that may reflect better access to primary care relative to comparison sites. Demonstration sites had larger increases in emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and Medicare Part B expenditures. (Funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.).

Association Between Patient-Centered Medical Home Capabilities and Outcomes for Medicare Beneficiaries Seeking Care from Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models of primary care have the potential to expand access, improve population health, and lower costs. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) were early adopters of PCMH models. OBJECTIVE: We measured PCMH capabilities in a diverse nationwide sample of FQHCs and assessed the relationship between PCMH capabilities and Medicare beneficiary outcomes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted, multivariable regression analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 804 FQHC sites that applied to a nationwide FQHC PCMH initiative and 231,163 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a plurality of their primary care services from these sites. MAIN MEASURES: PCMH capabilities were self-reported using the National Committee for Quality Assurance's (NCQA's) 2011 application for PCMH recognition. Measures of utilization, continuity of care, quality, and Medicare expenditures were derived from Medicare claims covering a 1-year period ending October 2011. KEY RESULTS: Nearly 88% of sites were classified as having PCMH capabilities equivalent to NCQA Level 1, 2, or 3 PCMH recognition. These more advanced sites were associated with 228 additional FQHC visits per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (95% CI: 176, 278), compared with less advanced sites; 0.02 points higher practice-level continuity of care (95% CI: 0.01, 0.03); and a greater likelihood of administering two of four recommended diabetes tests. However, more advanced sites were also associated with 181 additional visits to specialists per 1000 beneficiaries (95% CI: 124, 232) and 64 additional visits to emergency departments (95% CI: 35, 89)-but with no differences in inpatient utilization. More advanced sites had higher Part B expenditures ($111 per beneficiary [95% CI: $61, $158]) and total Medicare expenditures of $353 [95% CI: $65, $614]). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of PCMH models in FQHCs may be associated with improved primary care for Medicare beneficiaries. Expanded access to care, in combination with slower development of key PCMH capabilities, may explain higher Medicare expenditures and other types of utilization.

Medical Oncologists' Experiences in Using Genomic Testing for Lung and Colorectal Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non-guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. RESULTS: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non-guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.